Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-07 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, November 07, 2024 at 6:00 PM MINUTES PRESENT Commissioner Brian Garrett Commissioner Andrew Seal Commissioner Jared Smith Commissioner Sam Rust Chairperson Maria Lorcher ABSENT Commissioner Patrick Grace Commissioner Matthew Sandoval ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve made by Commissioner Rust, Seconded by Commissioner Smith. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher, Commissioner Rust 1. Approve Minutes of the October 17, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for McDonalds at Firenze Plaza, by Kimley Horn, located at 3058 Amity Rd. 3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Touchmark Office Building A, by Conger Group, located at 3526 E. Louise Dr. 4. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Touchmark Office Building B, by Conger Group, located at 3512 E. Louise Dr. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 5. Public Hearing for Tone Fitness Studio (H-2024-0050) by Taylor Clausen, located at 3064 Milano Dr. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0050 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to operate an indoor recreation facility (Indoor Gym) In a suite from an existing 3,887 square foot multi-tenant building on 0.648 acre of land in the L-O zoning district. Motion to approve made by Commissioner Rust, Seconded by Commissioner Smith. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher, Commissioner Rust 6. Public Hearing for Black Cat East (H-2024-0047) by Sawtooth Development, located at 935 S. Black Cat Rd. Recommend Approval to City Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0047 A. Request: Annexation of 3.62 acres of land with the I-L zoning district to allow industrial development. B. Request: Modified Development Agreement to include this property in the development agreement for Black Cat Industrial (H-2021-0064). Motion to recommend approval made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Seal. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher, Commissioner Rust 7. Public Hearing for Summerlin West (H-2024-0023) by Laren Bailey, Conger Group, located on the east side of S. Locust Grove Road, between E. Lake Hazel and E. Columbia Roads in the SW 1/4 of Section 5, Township 2N, Range 1E Continued to November 21, 2024 Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0023 A. Request: Annexation of 63.965 acres of land From the RUT zone in Ada County to the R-8 (medium density), 17.27 acres and R-15 (medium high- density) 46.69 acres. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 339 building lots and 28 common lots on 63.17 acres of land zoned R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Motion to continue to November 21, 2024 made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Seal. Voting Yea: Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher Voting Nay: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Rust 8. Public Hearing for Pine 43 West (H-2024-0038) by CSHQA, located at SW Corner of N. Webb Ave. and E. Fairview Ave. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0038 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment within 300' of a residential use. Motion to approve made by Chairperson Lorcher, Seconded by Commissioner Seal. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher, Commissioner Rust 9. Public Hearing for Addison Circle Subdivision (H-2024-0040) by Centurion Engineers, Inc., located at 4535 N. Black Cat Rd. Recommend Approval to City Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0040 A. Request: Annexation of 1.87 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of seven (7) building lots and one (1) common lot on 1.87 acres of land. Motion to recommend approval made by Commissioner Seal, Seconded by Commissioner Rust. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher, Commissioner Rust 10. Public Hearing for Apex Phenomenal (H-2024-0041) by Brighton Corporation, generally located on the north side of E. Lake Hazel Rd. approximately 1/4 mile west of S. Locust Grove Rd. Recommend Approval to City Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0041 A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 64 building lots and 11 common lots and (1) other lot for future development on 16.15 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. Motion to recommend approval made by Commissioner Rust, Seconded by Commissioner Smith. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher, Commissioner Rust ADJOURNMENT 9:09 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To view upcoming Public Hearing Notices, visit https://apps.meridiancity.org/phnotices --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 7, 2024. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 7, 2024, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Maria Lorcher. Members Present: Commissioner Maria Lorcher, Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Jared Smith, Commissioner Brian Garrett and Commissioner Sam Rust. Members Absent: Commissioner Patrick Grace and Commissioner Matthew Sandoval. Others Present: Tina Lomeli, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Linda Ritter and Nick Napoli. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE _X Brian Garrett X Andrew Seal Matthew Sandoval Patrick Grace _X Sam Rust X Jared Smith X Maria Lorcher - Chairman Lorcher: All right. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning meeting for November 7th, 2024. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting are here at City Hall. We also have staff from the City Attorney and City Clerk's office, as well as the Planning Department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may be observed -- you may observe the meeting, however, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to comment. Please note that we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion of the meeting. If you have a process question during the meeting please e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply wish to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch on -- watch the streaming on the city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org/live. With that let us begin with roll call. Madam Clerk. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Lorcher: The next item -- or the first item is the adoption of the agenda. There are no changes to tonight's agenda. Could I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda? Smith: So moved. Seal: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adopt tonight's agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 2 of 55 CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the October 17, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for McDonalds at Firenze Plaza, by Kimley Horn, located at 3058 Amity Rd. 3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Touchmark Office Building A, by Conger Group, located at 3526 E. Louise Dr. 4. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Touchmark Office Building B, by Conger Group, located at 3512 E. Louise Dr. Lorcher: Next is the Consent Agenda. We have several items on the Consent Agenda, including to approve the minutes of the October 17th Planning and Zoning meeting, facts and findings and conclusions of law for McDonald's at Forensic Plaza and Touchmark Office Buildings A and B. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Rust: So moved. Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Lorcher: At this time I would briefly like to explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and our Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case and respond to staff's comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant is finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called only once during the public testimony portion. The clerk will call the names individually of those who have signed up on our website in advance to testify. You may come to the microphone in Chambers or you will be unmuted on Zoom. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and our clerk will help you run the presentation. If you have established that you are speaking on the behalf of a larger group, like an HOA, where others from that group will allow you to speak on their behalf, you will have up to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 3 of 55 ten minutes -- ten minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite any others who wish to testify. If you wish to speak on a topic you may come forward in Chambers or if on Zoom press the raise hand button in the Zoom app or if you are only listening on a telephone please press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, such as a computer and a phone, please be sure to mute those extra devices so we don't experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished if the Commission does not have any questions for you you will return to your seat in Chambers or be muted on Zoom and no longer have the ability to speak. And please remember we will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and to respond to any concerns. When the applicant has finished responding to the questions and concerns we will close the public hearing and Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and hopefully they can make a final decision or recommendations to City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 5. Public Hearing for Tone Fitness Studio (H-2024-0050) by Taylor Clausen, located at 3064 Milano Dr. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to operate an indoor recreation facility (Indoor Gym) In a suite from an existing 3,887 square foot multi-tenant building on 0.648 acre of land in the L-O zoning district. Lorcher: So, tonight I would like to open the first public hearing for Item 2024-0050 Tone Fitness Studio for a conditional use permit and we will begin with the staff report. Napoli: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. So, the first item on the agenda is a conditional use permit for Tone Fitness Studio. So, the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate an indoor recreation facility in a suite from an existing 3,887 square foot multi-tenant building. The site consists of .65 of an acre and -- and is located at 3064 West Milano Drive as shown on the screen. The existing zoning is L-O, which is our limited office district -- our limited office zoning and the FLUM designation is office. The proposed use of an indoor recreation facility is a conditional use in the L-O zoning. The L-O zoning and FLUM designation is meant to provide opportunities for low impact business -- business in areas which typically include professional offices, research and development, and -- and etcetera. This use adheres to the Policy 3.07.02B, which promotes locating smaller scale neighborhood serving commercial and office uses in close proximity to residential for convenient access. While an indoor recreation facility can create a large impact on an area, this indoor rec facility is more specialized, allowing for only 12 clients at any one time. Additionally, there will be no outside activity. The proposed indoor recreation facility provides a unique neighbor -- neighborhood serving use that can be essential for residents in the area. The L-O zoning district restricts the hours of operation at 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., which the applicant is in compliance with and agrees to. The site has already been approved and constructed, so it's ready just to have a tenant F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 4 of 55 improvement for the applicant to move in. Staff is recommending approval with conditions and has not received any written testimony at this time and I will stand for any questions. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? No? You are good. Okay. Madam Clerk, do we have any -- anyone who would wish to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. No one has indicated they wish to testify. Lorcher: Okay. And if you are comfortable with what staff had to say, I guess I will take a motion to close the public hearing. Rust: So moved. Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Tone Fitness Studio for a conditional use permit. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right. The motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: That seems pretty straightforward and a location that already has a building and they are in agreement with all the conditions that staff has put forward. Any other comments from Commissioners or a motion? Seal: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Yeah. I mean the only thing I saw on this was just the 12 clients at a time, so definitely a small area that there -- or a building that we are dealing with. So, I can see that that might get overrun at times, depending on their business model, so -- but parking and everything is adequate, so -- Lorcher: Yeah. They only accept 12 clients at any one time. I don't know if there are specific classes or it's -- it's kind of an app type of thing, but they already have a parking lot agreement, so I think everything should be fine. Any other comments? Rust: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Rust. Rust: I move to approve File No. H-2024-0050 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 7th, 2024. F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 5 of 55 Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve Tone Fitness Studio for a conditional use permit. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 6. Public Hearing for Black Cat East (H-2024-0047) by Sawtooth Development, located at 935 S. Black Cat Rd. Recommend Approval to City Council A. Request: Annexation of 3.62 acres of land with the I-L zoning district to allow industrial development. B. Request: Modified Development Agreement to include this property in the development agreement for Black Cat Industrial (H-2021- 0064). Lorcher: The next item on the agenda is Black Cat -- Black Cat East for annexation and a modified development agreement. We will begin with the staff report. Napoli: Thanks, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. So, the next item on the agenda is annexation and development agreement modification for Black Cat East. The applicant is requesting annexation and development agreement modification for 3.62 acres of land with the I-L Zoning District to construct approximately 74,365 square feet of an industrial building. The site consists of 3.62 acres of land located 935 South Black Cat Road. As shown on the screen the existing zoning is RUT in Ada county and FLUM designation is mixed employment. This property was part of the initial application for Black Cat East industrial as shown on the screen and it's going to be this area down here where Building M is represented. The applicant is now seeking annexation to integrate this property into the surrounding development and align it with the broader planning efforts in the area. While I-L is not the preferred zone in the mixed employment designation, the City Council previously approved a request for the I-L zone in the surrounding development. Due to this the applicant requests the same zoning granted by City Council with the previous application to ensure a cohesive and consistent development. In 2022 a traffic study was completed with the previous application and was not required with this one. However, the TIS addressed concerns regarding traffic for this development and it was found that the infrastructure will be able to manage the 2.2 million square feet that will be developed within the broader project. This property was included within the scope of that traffic impact study. Additionally, there were thresholds placed on occupied square footage that will trigger roadway and infrastructure improvements as the development continues to be built out. The surrounding developments have similar requirements and restrictions on development until certain road -- road improvements are completed. According to the concept plan the predominant use appears to be warehousing and distribution, which is consistent Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 6 of 55 with the surrounding area and aligns with the City Council's previous approval. Access is proposed off an existing curb cut on Grand Mogul, which is consistent with the original concept plan. Additionally the applicant has provided ten foot detached sidewalks on both sides of West Grand Mogul Drive consistent with the Pathways Master Plan. The building elevations and landscape plan will be analyzed with a submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance and design review. However, the applicant is proposing a change to one of the development agreement provisions. Staff has talked with the applicant and I think that we are going to move forward with trying to find a solution or some common ground before the City Council hearing. These are the proposed elevations that we were shown and really the provision that they were in question was the 30 percent fenestration to be measured by square footage along the northern half of the eastern facade facing Black Cat. However, the applicant wants it to be measured by linear feet instead of square footage of the building. So, instead of the overall area they want it to be measured by linear feet. So, 30 percent fenestration. We did talk with the applicant. We are willing to work with them to find a compromise to find a solution that is both common ground for both of us prior to the City Council hearing, but that is going to be something that we will review at the administrative design review, so it's not pertinent to this application really. So, you guys are the recommending body, though, with this, so you may choose to change our position. If you choose to do so within that development agreement you can change it tonight. It's something that we will work with the applicant on prior to City Council. So, it's -- but you guys have the authority to change that. So, given the previous approval staff is recommending approval and has received written testimony from Clay Sammis, who is the applicant and developer, in opposition of the condition requiring 30 -- 30 percent fenestration measured by square footage, but as I stated staff has talked with the applicant and we are willing to work with them on that. So, I will stand for questions at this time. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Koeckeritz: Good evening. Lorcher: Good evening. Koeckeritz: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Elizabeth Koeckeritz. I'm with Givens Pursley. 601 Bannock Street, Boise, Idaho. I'm here on behalf of the development team, which is Sawtooth Development Group. With me today if there is any questions that I'm unable to answer we also have Clay Sammis with the development team and Brandon Swanson. I think Nick really -- hopefully that this is pretty short. Nick really did cover everything today and so we are here for the annexation and zoning for the final piece of this development. I went too far. Okay. This was the original -- these are so touchy. Okay. This was the original site plan. It did originally include the 3.62 acre parcel. This happened back in 2022, 2023 was the final approval. At that time for various reasons it did not go forward. Now it's not going forward here. Might want to try the arrows. There we go. Okay. And so ultimately this is the site plan that was approved and it did take out this building that we are now proposing. At that time both staff, council and the applicant wished that they could have Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 7 of 55 included this building, but they just did not have the site control that was necessary at the time. Since, then, fast forward another year and here we are and this is the current site plan that was originally intended to be included. It's now here we are asking just that this be annexed and zoned and developed really in substantial conformance with everything else that's been going on within this development. We have the site plan here. It does allow that hard corner to finally be developed. If you look at the various -- I believe they are in your packet -- we are doing additional fenestration, doing a big sort of front entryway appearance area to really make that corner stand up. There is additional parking over what's required and we are meeting all requirements of the development code. As Nick mentioned we are not in one hundred percent agreement yet on what the fenestration along Black Cat will be. We have been working with them closely. We proposed some language today. They have come back with other language. And so at this point in time just continue to -- we ask to continue to work with them to come up with some language that will work for all parties in the future. It is really a design review issue, but at the same time if it's in the development agreement we want to make sure we have it right right from the start and so with that we would ask approval of the annexation and zoning of this parcel. Lorcher: Thank you. Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant? Rust: None at this time. Lorcher: All right. Thank you very much. Koeckeritz: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anyone to testify? Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one has signed up. Lorcher: Anything else that you would like to add or are you good? Okay. Then I will take a motion to close the public hearing. Smith: So moved. Seal: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close a public hearing on Black Cat -- Black -- why can't I say that -- Black Cat East. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: It appears that this was not available at the time that they had made the Black Cat industrial, but it has always been planned for it, so it just kind of continues on. 10 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 8 of 55 Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I guess just a question for -- for staff, because it seems like this is whatever the language kind of is at it seems like the idea is that it's kind of going to be tweaked probably a little bit. So, from my perspective I think the question is what is -- I guess best for the -- the kind of agreement -- or the cooperation going forward. Is it -- should we just kind of set what staff's recommending and, then, work back from there or tailor down? Does -- does it really matter all that much regarding kind of the final product I guess is -- is the guidance I'm looking for here. Napoli: Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith, as far as with that, correct, if you guys were to just approve the staff report as staff has presented it today, it is something that we can work with the applicant on to modify before City Council. As far as with that if you guys did like their provision change more than staff's, you guys could condition it to do that as well to where we will change it and we can still work with them to find a solution there. It's just a matter of really what you guys would like to do. But either way it's something that we will probably work with them on and it will probably change a little bit before the -- the City Council hearing. Lorcher: I think as long as it looks like it belongs there and it's not an afterthought, whether, you know, it comes from linear feet or square feet or -- or whatever the language ends up being, so that it -- it seems like it's always been a part of it I'm sure you can come to some kind of wording and discussion on how that would be. I mean if this is the rendering, it looks like, you know, the buildings are a little bit -- several different directions. This one seems to be the smallest of all of them, even at 76,000 square feet, but I think the goal is just to make sure that they all belong together. Smith: Madam Chair, I will make a motion. Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council File No. H-2024-0047 as presented in the staff report with no modifications. Seal: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to apply -- to approve File No. 2024-0047 with no modifications. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. F11 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 9 of 55 7. Public Hearing for Summerlin West (H-2024-0023) by Laren Bailey, Conger Group, located on the east side of S. Locust Grove Road, between E. Lake Hazel and E. Columbia Roads in the SW 1/4 of Section 5, Township 2N, Range 1 E A. Request: Annexation of 63.965 acres of land From the RUT zone in Ada County to the R-8 (medium density), 17.27 acres and R-15 (medium high-density) 46.69 acres. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 339 building lots and 28 common lots on 63.17 acres of land zoned R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Lorcher: All right. Moving right along. The next item is Summerlin West for annexation and preliminary plat on Locust Grove between Lake Hazel and Columbia Roads. We will begin with the staff report when they you are ready. Ritter: Good evening, Commissioners. So, tonight we are here for a -- an annexation with zoning to R-8 and R-15. The project is -- it's -- so, it's an annexation with zoning from rural urban transition to R-8 medium density and R-15 medium high density and a preliminary plat application to allow for the development of a 367 lot subdivision consisting of 330 residential lots and 28 common lots on 63.17 acres. The site is located between -- it's on Locust Grove just before Columbia Road. Sorry. This will be the R-15 portion that they are proposing and this is the R-8 portion that they are proposing and they are proposing to do this in six phases. So, the proposed density for the 17.274 acres of land for the R-8 district equates to 2.95 dwelling units per acre and 6.12 dwelling units per acre for the 46.691 acres proposed for the R-15. So, the applicant states that the proposed project has an overall gross density of 5.37 dwelling units per acre, meeting the density range listed above. So, staff finds the proposed preliminary plat and the requested R-8 and R-15 zone to be generally consistent with the future land use map designation medium and low density residential. So, although the R-8 zone meets the requirements of three or less dwelling units per acre, it does not meet the intent of the low density residential FLUM designation as outlined in our Comprehensive Plan. So, low density residential allows for the development of single family homes on large estate lots. So, these are often transitions between the existing rural residential and urban properties. Development needs to respect agricultural heritage and resources, recognize view shares, open spaces and maintain or improve the overall atmosphere of the area. The use of open spaces, parks, trails and other appropriate means should enhance the character of the area. Density bonus may be considered with provisions of additional public amenities, such as a park, school or land dedicated for the public service. So, this is how our comp plan identifies this. So, staff recommends that there is a shift from the R-8 designation to the R-2. That slide real quick. Oops. So, we recommend a shift from the R-8 designation to an R-2 and R-4 zoning with larger lots that are 8,000 to 12,000 square feet, which aligns with the goal of creating a smoother transition between the rural and urban properties and, again, the emphasis on larger estate lots in the transition serves -- area serves several important 12 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 10 of 55 purposes. Again, preserving the rural character by opting for larger lots the development can offer a buffer that respects the rural and agricultural heritage of the area and maintaining a sense of openness, recognizing the scenic view shares and open space, larger lots allow for more open space, which can help with key -- key views and create less dense, more spacious environment. This approach is particularly valuable if the area has a scenic or historic value that residents and communities wish to preserve. Ensuring compatibility, transitioning with larger lots prevent a -- prevents a stark contrast between high density urban properties and low density in rural areas, helping to avoid potential issues with traffic, noise and visual impacts for existing rural properties. Enhancing quality of life, maintain an open space and respecting the area's agricultural routes can contribute to a more cohesive community atmosphere, balancing growth and preservation of the area's heritage. The recommendation supports the balance of growth approach that will be more sensitive to the area's unique character and appeal. So, access to this property is proposed from Summerlin Drive via Locust Grove, which is this road right here. A secondary access is proposed via the north-south collector roadway, which is over here, which is Barchetta Avenue, which abuts the southeast property line. Ada County Highway District -- not too limited -- for Ada County Highway District not to limit this development to one thousand trips per day or -- or a final plat of a hundred building lots, they have to provide a secondary access. The applicant is proposing to construct an emergency access on Locust Grove approximately 430 feet south of Summerlin Drive and in alignment with Ambervale Street. So, they are propose -- proposing a secondary access on this slide, which is not showing on this site map. The applicant may have a better slide that shows the secondary access. There is a proposed stub street as part of the Hadler Subdivision, so located on the north side of the site. There is a -- an existing private road, which is Cavalli Lane, which is separating the site in Hadler Subdivision. ACHD is requiring that that private road be closed at the intersection of Locust Grove when the parcels to the east being served by this roadway develop to allow for the stub street that was approved as the Handler Subdivision to be extended into the future and allow for site circulation. So, again, the applicant was required to provide a stub street in the site's north property boundary and then -- and in alignment with the stub street approved with Hadler. So, there is a stub street that goes up to -- to this alignment road here. So, staff has concerns regarding the access management and impacts due to the close proximity of the private road to the proposed public roads from Summerlin Drive. Staff feels the applicant and the adjacent property owner should coordinate to develop a shared access solution. A shared access point could potentially reduce traffic congestion and simplify entry-exit points, particularly for larger developments and not leave 50 feet of undeveloped land. The applicant needs to provide a stub street -- again we are asking that the applicant provided a stub street to the property -- from here to the property to the south, parcel R831520030 over the Rawson Canal. For ACHD, other than access specifically approved with this application, direct access to Locust Grove is prohibited. Sorry for the back and forth. So, it appears that several blocks may exceed the 750, but the applicant has provided a pedestrian connection as allowed by the UDC. However, Crimson Clover Drive exceeds the maximum length of 1,200 feet by approximately 665 feet. The applicant needs to request a waiver from Council for the exceeded block length. So, the -- this is the landscape plan for the subdivision. It F13] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 11 of 55 appears to meet the requirements of the UDC. They may need to add -- actually they need to add pathway landscaping on the south side of this pathway along the Rawson Canal. That is part of the conditions for their landscape plan that they need to provide that. They do meet their open space requirement. They -- but they are missing one of the requirements, which is the multi-modal, so they need to either add like a -- something from that category. So, they were missing that when we reviewed our open space requirements. They had something from all the other categories. That's just the one category that they are missing something from. These are the amenities that they are proposing for this development, which are similar to the ones that they normally do. Pickleball courts, dog park, pathways and tot lot. One of the things that staff has requested as part of this as -- within the R-15 zone designation. So, again, that allows for reduced lots down to 2,000 square feet and -- and it provides flexibility for a developer to support a diversity and variety of housing types. This can create a dynamic multi-generational community where residents can transition through different stages of life, kind of known as aging in place, while remaining in the same neighborhood. This type of zoning, in conjunction with other designations should be used to support diverse housing mix that supports long-term residency and continuity with the community, promoting stability and a sense of place for residents throughout different stages of life. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.01.01, it encourages diversion housing options suitable for various income levels, household size and lifestyle preferences. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.01.01-G states development should avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in a geographical area, provide for diverse housing types throughout the city. So, staff is recommending that the applicant provide a mix of dwelling types, such as single family attached or townhomes within Block 2, Lots 2 through 12, Block 3 Lots 2 through 20 and Block 4 Lots 2 through 20 of the proposed development as supported by the Comprehensive Plan within the R-15 Zoning District. So, the applicant did provide three conceptual building elevations for the proposed subdivision. The applicant states that the homes in the Summerlin West Subdivision will include a mix of different product type, two story and single story detached single family homes. So, buildings should be designed with elevations that create interest for the use of broken plains, windows, and fenestration that provide a rhythm of materials and patterns. Design review is not required for a single family detached structure. However, because the rear and sides of the homes facing Locust Grove Road or Barchetta Avenue and the collector portion for Summerlin Drive will be highly visible, staff recommends a DA provision requiring that these elevations incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: Modulation, bays, banding, porches, balconies, material type or other integrated architectural elements to break up the monotonous wall plains and roof lines that are visible from adjacent public street. Single story homes are exempt from this requirement. Design review is required for single family attached and townhomes. The design review will have to meet requirements outlined in the city's architectural standards. So, there were some issues and waivers that were -- staff was aware of during this process. Again, the access management that I talked about with the Summerlin Drive, the proposed public road being in close proximity to the private road Cavalli Lane. They will be required to ask for a waiver to keep the canal open. They are not proposing to tile it. Again, the waiver for the block face length for East Crimson Drive -- Clover Drive and, then, we F14] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 12 of 55 also received something from the Kuna School District saying that they cannot serve the proposed development, because the proposed plat in this zone are beyond the district's capacity. The proposed development will impact Silvertrail Elementary, Fremont Middle School, Kuna High School and Swan Falls High School, which are already at or over capacity with the current enrollment. We did receive testimony from Anna Canning from Centurion Engineering talking about the treatment of Cavalli Lane, the phasing of stub streets and utilities and the sizing of the sewer line in the project and also we see -- we received a written comment from Tony and Jeanie Mayer expressing that the neighborhood meeting did not meet the city's requirement. The zoning density is more than recently approved with the Centennial Park Subdivision to the immediate north and, then, along the canal do not meet the intended buffer requirement and also no safety measures on the south side of the Rawson Canal. At this -- with that -- well, staff -- we do have some concerns about if the public meeting wasn't held to city standards that is a concern and about the private road and the public road being in safe -- in close proximity to one another. But staff did recommend approval of this with the findings and the conditions outlined in the report and at this time I will stand for any questions that you have. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Clark: Hi, everybody. How's it going? Lorcher: Good. Clark: Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street in Boise, representing the applicant, and I would just like to point out that after all that we do have a recommendation for approval and so let's just try to figure out the -- the elements that need to be figured out here. We think we have a good project. Commissioner Smith, I think we have an easy one, frankly, on this one to go back to the check-in that you and I had at the beginning of these hearings. So, as soon as that presentation's up I will kind of dive in. The -- the project, as you guys know, while she's getting that put together, is in south Meridian; right? We are near Discovery Park. You can almost hit it with a good Frisbee throw. It's really well located near the new fire station. The property that was previously platted is the Hadler Subdivision is what's immediately to the north of us. That's a project that we did a couple years ago and so that will come up as we -- as we do the discussion here tonight, just some reminders of that. The other unique element of the project is that we do have the Rawson on the south and so that's a design constraint that led specifically to the waivers that we are -- we are doing tonight, but these are the good waivers. These are the waivers that Commissioner Seal really likes, because we are keeping the Rawson open for the pathway. So, this is the -- what I just described a second ago a picture of the Rawson and this is from further up, but this is, essentially, what it looks like in this area. Comprehensive Plan. So, the comprehensive planning shows the majority of the site is as MDR and the lower quarter is LDR against the Rawson. Remember that under the comp plan you have the ability to stretch designations. We haven't asked to do that. The reason for that is that we have zoning, R-15 and R-8, that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but as you guys know 15 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 13 of 55 the Comprehensive Plan doesn't really tie specifically to a particular zone. Instead it ties to a particular density. Our densities -- so for the MDR the density should be between three to eight units per acre per the Comprehensive Plan. Our MDR density is 6.12. The LDR density should be less than three. We are at 2.95. So, we are within the densities that are prescribed by the Comprehensive Plan. Staff agrees with that, though, there is some additional conversation later on in terms of some of staffs preferences that we will -- we will get back to you. With regard to the site plan, overall we are blended to the five units per acre. It's a very nicely designed project. Significant open space. Harmonious with the Rawson Canal on the south -- south. We have a ton of amenities. Someday I will get Linda to actually say the number of amenity points that we got, but we tripled the amenity points. Another point I -- I guess maybe this might be a good time to show you this, if the mouse will keep up with me. Linda was pointing out the question of secondary access. So, our project -- the first phase would be to build this through here. The second phase connects out to the east with this collector. So, that would be our secondary access assuming that the rest of the collector is built north to south. Meridian -- excuse me -- ACHD doesn't want us to build an island of collector against our property, so if the rest of it's not connected we have provided secondary access, emergency access on the west side of the property. So, that's what Linda was describing to you before. We are of the opinion that that secondary access probably won't be needed, but we have the contingency plan in place in case we do. So, we are well in excess of the open space requirements. City requires 15 percent or nine and a half acres. We are at 24 percent. So, that's in -- we are in excess of the city requirements by six acres. It's a very well connected project. In addition to the internal paths and sidewalks we are doing over one mile of regional pathways, much of which is along the Rawson Canal and as I mentioned we are doing a Commissioner Seal type pathway with the Rawson open, about 75 feet of space there along the Rawson. We are doing landscaping on both sides of the Rawson. We are at the preliminary plat stage, so those plans are not going to be specifically detailed just yet, but it will be landscaped on both sides. Fencing is required so that safety question will be addressed. As is typical of the developer we are going to provide amenities that, again, blow those requirements out of the water. We have a community pool on this one. The play structures, soccer fields, pickleball fields, dog parks, pathways -- it all adds up to a 38 and a half amenity points. The requirement's 13. So, that's why I say we nearly have all the amenity points on this one. The question on the multi-modal -- we will talk to staff about that. We don't have an issue with adding a multi-modal amenity. I tend to think that a regional pathway is a multi-modal amenity, but we will work that out with staff and -- and we don't have an issue with the -- the requirement for an additional multi-modal. These are the elevations and the homes that we are proposing. It is a mix of single family detached. That's what the market wants. Here you can see our single story elevations, two story elevations and here are the elevations for the R-8 areas that will include some two-story and I want to talk about the way that these are mixed. So, we -- we have this -- these mixed through the project in a very thoughtful way. So, it will be single story against the -- only against -- let me say this -- not get myself all tied up here. Single story only against the collectors on each side and then -- so, the -- the issue is -- that Linda was mentioning about the -- you know, being concerned about what things look on the backside up against the collectors is not an -- is not an issue. F16] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 14 of 55 We have a mix of 32 foot lots internal to the project and on the northeast those 32 lots range all the way up to the 70 foot lots -- 60 and 70 foot lots in the R-8 area. In terms of timeline, we would anticipate bringing on about 40 homes per year. The first final plat sometime in 2025. First homes in 2026. From there it's likely an eight year build out with, again, approximately 40 homes per year. So, let's go to the -- the staff report and really there is only three items to discuss. The first -- and, again, we do have a recommendation of approval. We are in -- we are consistent with the code and the -- those waivers that we are talking about are all related to the existence of the Rawson and we would want to keep the Rawson open and, then, when you have a block length -- a road that meanders along the Rawson it's going to be a little bit long. So, that's why we have the -- the waiver there. But we do have concerns with a couple of the staff conditions. So, I'm going to hit those in turn. So, condition two -- this was a condition that dictates -- that we changed the housing from detached to attached or townhomes in three specific blocks. Those are the ones that staff prefers and we do not see a requirement for that in the comp plan or the code. Condition 3-C is the second bullet. That condition dictates that we change the R-8 zoning on the south to R-4 or R-2. This despite the fact that we do meet the densities that are identified in the comp plan. And, then, finally Condition 3-D dictates that we include a stub to the south across the Rawson despite ACHD having removed that requirement from their report. So, with regard to the mix of housing types, Condition 2 says that staff wants us to replace the housing we have shown with attached or townhomes in Blocks 2, 3 or 4, in quote, as allowed by the Comprehensive Plan within the R-15 zoning district. Close quote. Note staff doesn't say as required, but, instead, says as allowed and that's appropriate. The Comprehensive Plan does encourage housing types, but it -- it -- it encourages it across the city at large. There is no -- there is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that says residential FLUM project has to have a mix of housing types within that residential FLUM designation. So, we do that -- we contribute to the mix of housing types by -- in the comp plan, quote, the city identifies the diverse housing types throughout the city by providing a mix of future land use designations, which on page 2-3 of the Comprehensive -- Comprehensive Plan says, quote, that allows the city to integrate a range of residential unit densities. So, keep in mind what our project -- product is. You have all seen our applications before. These are high end, high quality, small footprint homes. They are more accessible than a lot of what's built in the city, but there -- and we -- but they cater to the empty nester, the divorcee, the young professional that doesn't want to have a large yard. Given our unique lot size, price point and target market, we are providing diversity of housing in the city by our existence. Again, staff's condition is that we change from the market that we know and the market that we know exists and the type of housing that we know folks want, to what staff prefers in these three different blocks. The problem is that there is no requirement in the Comprehensive Plan to have a mix of housing types within each project in a residential FLUM, but beyond that this is, essentially, some -- a type of-- call it a social engineering approach. We meet the code and we should be able to build what we understand the market wants. But also keep in mind that this just isn't a monolith of the same homes. We have 32 foot lots, 38 foot lots, 41 foot lots, 70 foot lots -- mix of single and two story. So, there is plenty of variation of size and price point to give you that kind of mix through the -- the -- through the course of their project. So, there is no reason for this condition F17] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 15 of 55 and we would ask that condition two be removed. Next one was replacing R-8 with R-4, I guess, or also R-2. I will start with a little bit of explanation, because I think, you know, Commissioners, you all know that R-4, R-8, R-15 that doesn't correlate to density, that's just a -- that's a shorthand that we are -- that we are -- that we use in the -- in the city. While this is only R-8, the dimensional standards are more similar to an R-4. So, we have 60 feet of street frontage on those lots. The minimum in the R-4 is 60 feet. The problem for us is in using an R-4 is that R-4 kind of is a unique outcome in all of this, has a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet. Our lots are going to be a little bit smaller than that. So, we needed to do the R-8, because of the way the code is written, but this lives just like an R-4 because of the -- your front -- your frontage on each street is going to be just like an R-4 project. But here is a more important point. What we are dealing with in R-8 is consistent with a Comprehensive Plan. As noted before the R-8 zones -- or, excuse me, the -- I should have said the LDR density requirement is 2.95 units per acre, which matches the comp -- and -- or, excuse me, is below three. We have 2.95. Our R-8 area matches the Comprehensive Plan designation requirements. So, let's talk a little bit, too, about that transition in general. So, we have the Comprehensive Plan that says that -- where we think that we are consistent with it, but how does it transition to the south? It still transitions very well. So, again, we have the Rawson between our project and the properties to the south, but if you look at the existing development -- and this is looking from the -- like toward the southwest from our project towards Columbia Road, we have well in excess of 300 feet between these properties in the irrigation easement and an additional 76 feet of irrigation easement, ten feet of regional pathway and 20 feet of easement. So, there is more than adequate buffer here for anything that would be proposed. That's -- that's a monster buffer. But I would also keep in mind that if this area redevelops you would be talking about collecting the larger parcels, putting -- you know, scraping the houses, doing all of that work and that is going to come at significant cost. So, we think it's very unlikely that those -- if that area were to redevelop it would redevelop in anything less than an R-4. An R-8 to an R-4 is a very good transition zone anyway. And, then, finally, the stub to the south. Excuse me. On the left you can see another bridge that was just constructed across the Rawson and a little bit further up. Kind of gives you an idea of what's going to happen at our two collectors. So, as this is moving forward there are two bridges that are going in on either side of our property at the two -- at -- at Locust Grove and at the new collector on the east side. We are going to be either road trusting or contributing to the building of each of those. So, we will be active participants in each. This is what was left out of the staff report, though, is that ACHD did an initial draft that included a stub to the south. Discussions ensued with ACHD, staff and us. We pointed out that that would be the third bridge within a very short distance and it would be crossing property that's planned for low density residential that already has frontage on Columbia and already has two -- has frontage on two sides with collectors. So, the -- consideration was whether it would be a good use of public funds to add yet another bridge just to go into that LDR property and ACHD ultimately agreed, took that out, that is not in ACHD's final report. You know, our position is that we don't see why staff or the city would rule it -- overrule ACHD on that point. So, I will wrap up just by saying that we have a great project. We think we provide a mix of single family detached project -- product in a highly amenitized neighborhood. We blow away the 18 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 16 of 55 amenity requirements. We have -- we blow away the open space requirements. We are in compliance with the code and the comp plan and we would ask for your approval with the following modifications -- and these are the three conditions that I mentioned. So, delete Condition 2, which requires attached or townhomes two, three and four, despite that not being a requirement. Condition 3-C, which requires us to replace the R- 8 with R-4, despite the density requirements being satisfied and despite the transitions that we showed that largely involved that Rawson and the -- and the landscape and pathway areas and, then, delete Condition 3-D, which include -- requires the new stub road despite the ACHD decision. So, I think I'm out. Any questions? Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: This is an easy project. Props to you, if I could -- I couldn't do your job then. My question is -- one thing that I don't think was touched on or if it was I missed it -- was the Kuna School District. That feedback. I mean I know that -- I know the target market is retirees and professionals, et cetera, but that's not to say families aren't going to move into the area and so I guess the -- the things that I look at is in the staff report they have fewer options regarding busing and they are already at or over capacity. I -- I would tend to agree with most of your comments about you meet the code, et cetera. If it weren't an annexation and it's kind of more of a broad discussion of what's in the best interest of the city and so I -- I guess what -- how -- how do you respond to that and -- and how do you plan to work on that? Clark: Commissioner Smith, thanks. So, I -- I mentioned before the Hadler project that we did just north of this and this is the first time that that question of Kuna School District came up and I think it's relevant and I will get back to that in just a moment. So, of course, we are always sympathetic to the school districts. We are supportive of the school districts. We want to help make sure that they get the resources that they need. The school districts are in a tough spot, because our legislature doesn't fund them very well and makes everything reliant on -- on property taxes. But this is -- this letter is pretty tough for a number of reasons and I would note that it doesn't give us actual numbers. It says they can't serve the students, quote, because the proposed plats in this zone are beyond the district capacity. But the biggest problem is that the letter sets up a pay-to-play scenario, just as they did when we -- when we brought the Hadler project before the City Council and before you all. So, quote, to be able to serve this development the Kuna School District Board of Trustee -- Trustees requests -- in other words, if you make the payment we can serve your kids, which is problematic. You know, it's -- of course, it's actually illegal. Idaho Code 67-6513 says that if you are going to charge a fee you have to do it in accordance with the Impact Fee Act. The Impact Fee Act, obviously, that's not in place right now. So, this is the same place we were in with Hadler. Kuna School District's sent a very similar letter with regard to Hadler. Meridian -- City Council said, no, we are not doing a pay-to-play scenario in 19 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 17 of 55 Meridian in that case and so from our perspective we think that that's largely asked and answered. It's also a policy question I think that's, you know, appropriate for the -- for the -- the City Council to decide. I -- I would also note one other thing, you know, for -- this is the enroll -- current enrollment in the Kuna School District as of October 2024 per the numbers that we got with the public records request to the Idaho State Board of Education. What's interesting is that there is a spike in the high school right now with a glut that's following. So, you can see when the 8th graders are seniors there is going to be something like 450 students that are no longer in the system. You know, the football team is going to maybe have a hard time hitting the division status if it's -- if you have that many students coming out of the system by the time the 8th graders are seniors. The enrollment figures are also tracking well lower than what was in the TischlerBise document as referenced in the -- in the letter. The red is based on a five percent increase. The blue on a two percent increase. Those are the top and the bottom based on the TischlerBise document. The actuals are in black and they are coming in significantly lower. And, then, another element that I would point out is that the student generation numbers that are used in Kuna is about .513. We do track our project -- projects. We know how many students come out of this type of-- of product type. It's -- it's .124 at the Verado project, which is pretty similar to this one. Not exactly the same, but very similar. And so we think that that impact is -- is much more manageable. This kind of talks about how many students would be coming on -- on online if that is, in fact, the case that the .124 being the trip generation and, then, I just point out that there are other options as -- in addition to being able to open roll into West Ada. West Ada, it -- actually, the West Ada schools are closer. This is kind of an interesting spot of the city where you have this Kuna School District overlap with property that's actually in -- in the city -- where, you know, we are kind of used to talking to West Ada on these sorts of things and, then, in addition there are a couple of different public charter school options. So, to wrap all of that up, Commissioner Smith, it's that we don't agree with the pay-to- play scenario. We do think that this is something that was asked and answered with Hadler. We think it's a policy question that's ultimately up for the City Council to decide. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I -- I think broadly regarding pay to play, I think everyone has a right to their opinion regardless of -- okay. So, I think you are -- you are spot on there. I think my question -- I guess to give you a -- a scenario that I'm specifically interested in and have or might be able to speak to this -- some example. I'm a parent of a child in school and I guess what does the impact for that child look like, what does it look like for Hadler? What does busing look like? Are we creating any concerns there, because that's -- that's just something that's noted by staff in the staff report, not just the -- in the Kuna School District letter. So, that's something I want to make sure is that there is -- at the very least there are consistent, safe and manageable for the parents routes to school for the kids that do end up living here. F20] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 18 of 55 Clark: Commissioner Smith, I'm -- I'm not sure I understand your question. So, like the -- are -- are you saying that if -- if the students attend Kuna School District -- schools that there would be safe routes or are you saying under some of these other alternatives that we proposed -- Smith: Yeah. I think -- so -- so, specific lead to busing to other routes from the staff report says Kuna School District does not have a lot of options when it comes to busing students to different schools or to redrawing the school boundaries, drawing the distinction against West Ada. Clark: Yeah. Smith: So, I guess just -- if you can speak to that. Clark: I think I know -- I think I understand where that comment came from. So, the -- think back to -- and -- and, Linda, tell me if I'm getting this wrong. But think back to the West Ada letters. Whenever we are in West Ada, West Ada sends a letter -- they actually give you the capacities and, then, they say here are the strategies that we are going to use if we -- if we meet the threshold of how many students can be accommodated at each school and those strategies include -- we are going to use portables, we are going to bus, we are going to move boundaries and, then, we are eventually going to build a school; right? And I think that the comment was is that while West Ada might have more flexibility in terms of the numbers of schools, West -- Kuna might not have that -- as many schools is that -- I think that's where that's coming from. But I would just say two things. One, again, the letter says will serve your students if you pay us money and it also says it -- so, it doesn't -- I mean I have concerns about the -- the conclusion that it has. But regardless of that, even if you take it at -- at face value, those students can still open enroll into West Ada, they can still go less than a mile to Gem Prep, which is open and has capacity just up on Lake Hazel right now. Like there are other options besides just the -- the Kuna schools themselves. Smith: Thank you. Clark: You're welcome. Lorcher: Commissioners, any other questions for the applicants before we open the public testimony? Rust: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Rust. Rust: I have a question for you regarding the public hearings. Staff kind of said at the end that there was some concerns around that. Did you guys comply with the public meetings? F21 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 19 of 55 Clark: Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner Rust. So, there -- we held a neighborhood meeting on -- I believe it was May 23rd. I went and checked the sign-in reports, because we did it -- we do it with via Zoom with the webinar option. So, I can, then, go in and I can pull down my recording, I can pull down who attended, I can pull down when they logged in and when they logged off. The individual who claims that we didn't hold the meeting logged on at 6:07 that night, logged off at 6:19, same as the other participant who was there. I have provided that sign-in log from Zoom to staff. We also have a recording -- video recording and audio recording of the neighborhood meeting that we are happy to provide to staff as well. In addition, Mr. Bailey, who is here in the room with us, took a letter and a business card and put it in the door of the individual who -- who made the complaint in the letter today. So, yes, we did hold a neighborhood meeting that satisfies the city requirements and we are happy to provide whatever evidence of that and we did further reach out to those folks. Rust: Thank you. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Clark: Okay. Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anyone to testify? Lomeli: Madam Chair, I have Tony Mayer online that signed up. Lorcher: On Zoom? Lomeli: Correct. Lorcher: Okay. Hi, Tony Mayer. If you can state your name and address for the record, please. Mayer: Yes. It's Tony Mayer and I have my wife here Jeanie Mayer. We live at 7850 Gearhard Lane, which is just south of this proposed project. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Mayer: Should I go? Lorcher: Yep. Go ahead. Mayer: Oh. Okay. Well, first one I would like to address this public meeting. I would request that video recording that he talks about, because we -- we were informed by postcard of this meeting -- of a public meeting and the -- the night of the 23rd when it was scheduled we -- we did log in. However, they had their own software program and we could not hear -- or they could not hear our responses or our questions and we -- they tried multiple times to get their audio system to work and -- and eventually just 22 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 20 of 55 gave up and, then, they rushed through the -- the presentation and ended the meeting and we had no -- really no opportunity to discuss their proposal and -- and we were -- we were pretty much stymied by the whole process. The next day I did call the Planning and Zoning Department in -- in the -- in City of Meridian, talked to a gentleman there, explained to him what happened. He says, look, I can't -- I can't talk to you; right? I can't look at it, because they haven't applied yet and so he says they -- if they didn't -- didn't conduct the proper meeting they will probably go ahead and -- and have another meeting and -- and which they never did do. There was no face-to-face meeting, no effort to ever reach back out to us. So, it's my contention -- and my wife is right here, she will corroborate what I'm saying, they did not give us an opportunity to really discuss this as -- as is required. So, I would like to -- so, I would like that -- that evidence that -- that he says he has and I think you will see what I'm talking about. There was no two-way communication, it was all one way and it was very rushed and -- and ended abruptly, so -- so, I will -- I -- I submitted a -- an e-mail to the -- the staff. So, that, basically, is number one of my letter. Second one is the zoning he requested is a high density -- basically a very high density in -- in my mind and if I look at the plat -- if you look at immediately to the north -- and I said Centennial Park. It's the Hadler Subdivision. I would like to correct that. It looks to me like it's a lot less density, probably somewhere around R -- R-8 and -- and possibly R-4, I don't know, but it is a different density and I don't understand that rationale how the Zoning Commission can -- can require -- or would require that -- that lower density in that subdivision and yet right -- right next to it to the south they are allowing this R-15, which to me is just packing a bunch of sardines in a can and just going to have a lot of congestion as a result. So, I would -- I would like to propose that to the -- to the Commission, the zoning board here, that it is much higher than what's allowed for the Hadler Subdivision and I think they should go back to the same requirement and -- and require the R-8 for the whole thing, except for the -- the buffer area. Lorcher: Okay. Mr. Mayer, any final thoughts? Your time is almost -- your time is up. Mayer: Okay. Well -- J.Mayer: Final thoughts. Go ahead. You are on. Mayer: Am I still on? Lorcher: You are. You just have just a few more seconds to go. Mayer: I'm sorry, I didn't know. Lorcher: I know it's hard to do when you are not looking at each other. Mayer: Anyway, I don't think they have met the requirement for the transition zoning. You know, I -- I listened to this guy and, man, I can see how he can sell homes. You guys have to just sit back -- you require zoning, you require things, you do it. You can't let some slick salesman like this come in there and bully and basically a high density 23 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 21 of 55 project and guess who -- if he gets the money out of it and you guys -- we end up with overcrowded, congested roads, just a -- a mess, that the -- that the county can't deal with and have constant problems and yet they are happy, because they made all this money off this subdivision. I think it's -- it's -- it's crazy. That's going on all over and -- Lorcher: All right. Mr. Mayer, thank you very much. We will have to -- we will have to stop at this time. Mayer: Okay. My wife has a conversation, too. Lomeli: Madam Chair, Jeanie Mayer has signed up as well. Lorcher: All right. Mrs. Mayer, you have three minutes. J.Mayer: Okay. When we first were looking at buying the property we went to Ada county and before we purchased the property we asked them what was the risk. At the time there was no development on that mile section and -- of development and they told us that whole area was zoned so the maximum density that they could have would be one house per five acres and we went back after we purchased the property a couple years later, we were considering making some improvement, but didn't want to put up a lot of money if there was going to be the risk of a subdivision going in anytime soon and they assured us once again, no, that that whole area was zoned -- Mayer: Agriculture. J.Mayer: -- agriculture. So, with the -- the maximum density being one per five acres. So, we feel very betrayed by Ada county that -- that this has happened and we -- I -- I have personally very much agree with your recommendation that it be no less than R-2 or four, especially on Rawson Canal and it's -- it's very apparent to me that if you were to allow the developer to do what he wants to do, not only would you have a -- a tremendously clogged traffic problem on -- on the surrounding one mile roads, but also within that subdivision itself, especially with only one access point. But even with two access points during rush hour or before and after school you are going to have irate residents. This to my mind is -- it should go under the category of the very definition of unadulterated greed, because that's what you have got going on here without any consideration for the quality of life for the residents in the community or the surrounding acreages. It's unbelievable. This is exactly how we got into the traffic congestion problem that we have in Ada county. It's because we have uncontrolled, uncoordinated development. I lived in California for three years and I never lived through the kind of traffic issues that we have here the whole time I lived in California, because they didn't allow this kind of high density to go unchecked and uncontrolled and I have a question for the Council. You mentioned something about in your recommendations about allowing an access across Rawson Canal. Where would that be, the proposed access? Lorcher: Finish your testimony and, then, we will -- we will revisit that when the Commissioners speak. 24 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 22 of 55 J.Mayer: So, my -- my conclusion is that you not allow the applicant to go high density, that you stick to your guns on the proposal to be a lower density solution for this development. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone else to testify? Lomeli: Madam Chair, I have Anna Canning. Lorcher: Good evening. Canning: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Anna Canning and I am with Centurion Engineers, 2323 South Vista, Suite 206. Lorcher: Thank you. Canning: And tonight I am representing Jack Jack, LLC. The name I love to say. So, I might say it a lot tonight. But the owner of Jack Jack, LLC, hired us specifically to comment on this application. Ms. Ritter highlighted one of the very key issues we have and that's the entrance road. So, in my three minutes I'm going to try and hit the entrance road and the phasing. So, hopefully, I can get to both of them and I will talk fast. So, the entrance road -- Jack Jack, LLC, properties are along the entire northern boundary of Summerlin Subdivision and the private road Cavalli Lane was approved as a private road in Ada county with specifically a 50 foot right of way. Ada county requires that 50 feet of lot for the private road so that it can be turned from a private road into a public road. Urban densities come forward exactly like this. The Summerlin Drive is not close to Cavalli Lane. It is -- exactly butts up to it. The two kind of turn lanes coming out will meet. So, they are right on top of each other, creating a very unsafe situation. I am not sure how or why ACHD felt like it met their offset policy. There is no offset policy. Even more disturbing is that ACHD, without a public hearing or anything, has decided that our client's property will be turned into a common lot in the future for open space. They don't have the authority to decide that outside of a public hearing with no application before them. So, we are a little concerned that they are taking that kind of action in advance of -- of what's appropriate. My client is willing to work with the Summerlin development folks, so that they can work on a shared access. We think that that's very important. Critically important really. Regarding the phasing, the applicant has structured the phasing so that the stub streets that were originally proposed are in, you know, a very minor -- so they leave one road so that -- to the very end on the north so that those stub streets can be delayed along with the public utilities. We do ask that the stub streets adjoining the Jack Jack properties be in a first or second phase, so that we can move forward of -- of kind of completing that urban fabric so that we don't have a horse farm in the middle of urban densities and so that also we can continue some of the other plans for that area, like the -- the sewer extension, the water extension, to -- to kind of complete the traffic loops and water loops in the area. Look at that three minutes. And with that I will answer any questions you may have and I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to you tonight. F25] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 23 of 55 Lorcher: Thank you very much. Canning: Thank you. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith, yes. Smith: -- I guess my -- my question regarding the shared access -- has there been any discussion up to this point regarding that shared access? Is this the result of a disagreement or has there not been in communication there? Canning: There was a -- there was an offer. I will be honest my client described it as -- that he was given a limited amount of time to make a really very important decision. He felt a little bit bullied and so he decided not to go forward at that time. But regardless of that, Commissioner Smith, is -- that road is still there. It doesn't meet the offset. Whether or not there was an offer to purchase it it's still there. If it were a public road we -- they would have dropped that offset to an appropriate entrance point. They didn't do that. They just ignored its existence kind of. I'm -- I'm really not -- I'm really befuddled as to how that happened. Lorcher: Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone else to testify? Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one has signed up -- or no one else. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Clark: Hey, everybody. Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street in Boise. So, I will address the two sets of comments that we have here. So, with regard to the Mayers' comments -- so I think we kind of got to the bottom of what the concern was about the neighborhood meeting and it was the two way audio question. So, let me give you a little background on how we conduct webinars. So, if you -- if you can imagine that if you have a project that has a lot of interest in it and you have a webinar and everybody has their mic turned on we have experienced this -- it's similar here -- it gets very chaotic very quickly and so when we do these webinars what we typically do is rely on the Q&A function and we say, okay, please -- if you have a question, please, put it in the Q&A function and we will answer it live and that way we have a checklist to go through, everybody gets to get their questions put up, we go through all of that and that's what we found to be the most productive use of time in connection with the webinar. So, there was no glitch. That was how we intended to run it. That's how we have always done the webinars, so -- and, like I say, we are -- we are glad to provide the -- the video. We typically offer to the folks who attend that if you want a copy of the video let us know. So, this is -- and we find that the Zoom webinars are really good for that, because, you know, if you are just standing out in a -- in a windswept, you know, field there is typically not a recording for people to go back to and refer to if they want to see what happened. So, with regard to the second point there was a suggestion that the F26] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 24 of 55 Hadler Subdivision was at a significantly low zoning and density. Again we did Hadler. Hadler is R-15. Hadler's density is 7.25 units per acre. Ours is in the five range. So, it is more dense than this project. It does step down. The one thing that I think we might be allies on with the Mayers is the bridge, because as I understand it I think the stub, it -- per staffs recommendation is that it would go into the Mayer's property. We don't want the stub. So, you know, for the reasons that we mentioned before, you know, I think everybody -- you know, it seems like everybody can have common ground on something. We have common ground on that. With regard to the requests from Ms. Canning, so we have -- we have had meetings with this property owner multiple times over the course of the years. So, again, Hadler -- when we were developing Hadler we reached out and said, hey, we would like to -- you know, we think it makes sense to maybe acquire that piece, coordinate it, whatever. Could not arrive in an agreement. Had multiple conversations after that, including up -- within the last couple of weeks the offer we received was exorbitant, so the way that this has moved forward, then, is that it's a private road. So, there is not a -- it's a private drive, there is no spacing requirement from a public road to a private drive, but because we don't control it, ACHD and -- and the others that have reviewed this have looked at it and said, okay, we will deal with it the best we can then. You are coming in with the development application, you are first through the door, you are proposing the road network, you can only build the road network on property that you control and so we will do this, we will require you to stub and, then, that area will not have access when it develops and I think that's an important point to make that ACHD is not cutting off that access now, it's cutting off that access when it develops and there is not -- as I understand it there is not a home on there, it's a -- it's a horse operation and so we are not talking about cutting off, you know, somebody's domestic access here and we are certainly not cutting off anything until the -- the development occurs and everything that ACHD has done has been consistent with ACHD standard practices. You guys know this, like when ACHD gets a development application they review it, they submit the report, that report gets reviewed and, then, if it's not appealed to the Commission that is -- that is the final piece. There is no public hearing process in connection with an ACHD application unless somebody challenges it. So, we think that what ACHD has done is appropriate, you know, given that we don't control that area and we have never made any headway in being able to -- to coordinate that. With regard to the re-phasing, I -- I think it's important to note that the ACHD report doesn't come off, but it does require us to stub to their property in three different locations from this project. In addition from the Hadler project there is two stubs as well. In addition to that this project will ultimately have the east-west collector that goes on the south side of Discovery Park that will be immediately adjacent to it. It will also have the north-south collector that will be immediately adjacent to it. So, the -- the property owner can either go build those and have access or wait for others to build those for him and have access, but we don't restrict their ability to move forward on any of it. With regard to sewer, our sewer that's being referenced, the -- the connection that -- the flow over to Locust Grove, that only applies to the western portion of our property up to about the park. That comes from Hadler and part of that project development. That pipe's already in. So, the oversizing doesn't happen as a result of that. The rest of it's going the other direction, which is being treated just like everybody else, but I think maybe the -- I would just make two points to -- to -- to close that off. F27] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 25 of 55 One is that I don't think it's fair for that property owner to come to you and say, hey, we want you to demand this requirement with regard to sewer when you guys don't even have an application in front of you to know what the oversizing is or what it would look like and, then, the other point that I would make is that it shouldn't be -- this -- this hearing process shouldn't be a tool to be leveraged for purposes of a private negotiation. So, I think I will just leave it at that. So, any follow-up questions for Commission? Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any questions for Hethe? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I -- I think I have a question for staff, but I want to -- so you can elaborate I want to ask it during the public hearing. Regarding that private road, you know, if -- in the eventuality that this kind of pocket between Hadler and -- and Summerlin gets developed , where -- where does the connection -- where is the connection anticipated to come from? I see Hadler is stubbed to the south onto that private road. Is that going to be the main -- is that intended to be the main point of access or is there a future in which Summerlin Drive forks into that kind of subdivision. I guess my question is regarding making sure we are future proofing here and we are not accidentally creating this maze that's an emergency hazard. Parsons: Commissioners, I will try to answer that question, because I have been -- a lot of -- excuse me -- a lot of the discussions on that particular property and we have pre- app'd on this -- this -- on the Jack Jack property -- I will use your term, Anna -- many times to try to figure out a possible solution and Anna was right, basically, you know, our vision for it -- if-- if there wasn't going to be a solution and that -- essentially that 50 foot strip becomes a linear open space between the two developments and that the Jack Jack property would take access from the additional stuff streets that are currently being provided and that collector street along the east boundary. That's how we -- and the north boundaries. It's off of this map a little bit more, but there is an east-west collector road that runs along the south side of the park that this property will also be part of. So, it's not a -- it's not an issue of whether or not there is adequate connectivity, it's just from our standpoint is how do you integrate it and make it be functional as part of these projects so it's seamless and I have seen -- I have seen versions where it was a 50 foot linear open space and it worked well. It could have been an emergency access at one point as -- we talked about that. It could be dual purpose. We did meet with ACHD. We -- we tried to find a solution. I think everyone in this room agrees that it -- it would be beneficial for both property owners to come together and work on that solution, but we are at this -- we kind of agree with the applicant at this time it's -- it's challenging for us. We have ACHD that says this meets our requirements, but at the same time I think, Commissioner Smith, you brought up a good point. It's annexation and, again, that -- that gives you the most discretion to determine whether or not it's the right time. I don't know if that's the appropriate decision tonight, but it's one that certainly you as a body F28] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 26 of 55 can determine whether or not you want to continue this out to allow the applicant to work on a solution and come back or do you feel what ACHD has in the staff report and that -- I think the importance is -- the reason why we brought it up in the staff report, because we do think it is an issue or something that should be resolved and that's -- although we didn't have a condition of approval that said work with the applicant or postpone this or do anything, we still believe it -- it -- it does leave it open to interpretation and, like I said, in a perfect world I would love for them to work this out and figure out a road connect -- the connectivity in here, but it -- keep in mind if that is the case, then, that could be require a redesign by the applicant to try to figure out how that works and now we are going backwards, costing everyone time and money to try to figure out a possible solution. So, just some things to think about as you deliberate on this one issue. Smith: Thank you. Clark: Madam Chair, could I -- Lorcher: Yes. Go ahead. Clark: Yeah. I -- so, this -- I -- I think Bill hit two points that I agree with and one maybe that I don't. So, the two points that I agree with -- one is that it would require a redesign. I think that the important thing, though, to remember is that we have tried on this for years to try -- to try to come to a resolution and we can't. We haven't been able to. Given that, what we have, then, is that if the city were to say you have to go strike a deal with that with your neighboring property owner you are holding us hostage and there is very good reason why that is not something that cities do. Cities don't say you have to go strike a deal with a third party, because you are putting your fingers on the scale of that negotiation at that point. So, if you can't get the negotiation done, then, you have to deal with the -- with the facts they currently exist. The facts as they currently exist is that this is an off site that we don't control. ACHD's come up with a good solution here and it's something that allows us to move forward with our application and we think that it's appropriate. So, we are trying to avoid the impossible condition I guess is -- is where I would leave that. Seal: Madam Chair? Smith: Madam Chair? Oh. Seal: A couple questions. Kurt, I'm going to lean on you for this, so -- as far as the public hearing being in contention, what -- what are your thoughts on that, I mean as far as, you know, the legal standing of that with the city and -- and how we should approach that? Starman: Thank you. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. So, out -- number one, that's not a state requirement. It's not a state code issue. The neighborhood meeting is something that the City of Meridian requires to its UDC. The -- we don't 29 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 27 of 55 provide a lot specifics and, really, the city intentionally does not jump into the middle or the detail of that. We require the applicant to meet with neighbors. We don't have staff in attendance. We don't police those or monitor those and so we rely upon, you know, the applicant to meet with neighbors in good faith. Essentially what our language or what our code requires is a -- a meet -- you know, to provide an opportunity to meet with the neighbors and to provide some exchange of information. So, what I heard was two different versions, which I don't really think are incompatible with one another. I heard one version from some neighbors that indicated they didn't think they had an opportunity to engage in terms of being heard or -- from the audio perspective. I heard Mr. Clark described how they run their Zoom meetings, which is not uncommon, to have speakers on mute until they are recognized, to allow Q&A and so forth. So, there is no bright line answer for that. I don't think that's -- I don't think that what Mr. Clark described is contrary to what the code requires, but to the extent the Commission feels like more information -- or more dialogue needs to occur that that didn't meet the intent, I think you -- you know, there is some discretion on the Commission's part to require -- or at least request the applicant to reach out in -- in more -- you know, more in earnest. But it would be difficult for me to say that -- that the applicant failed to comply with the city code. Seal: Appreciate that. Follow up on that. For -- and -- and so my -- my understanding of this -- and I have seen meetings run like this. Do they have the opportunity to actually speak or they have to type it all out? Clark: We typically require folks to type it out and -- because that works better. We have a -- a recording of what happens. We are able to, you know, work down the list. You know, if -- if somebody has a question or -- and they have to jump off, you know, they can, then, you know, get it answered and, then, see the recording later. So, it's -- that's how we have typically done it. Seal: What do you do for people that cannot type? Clark: That's a good question. We have not encountered that before. If someone couldn't type, then, we would make an accommodation for sure. But I don't believe that was the case here, Commissioner Seal. Seal: How would you know? Clark: I think -- I think Mr. Mayer would have indicated that on the -- while he was here on the thing and -- and, like I said, we have spent time -- we have -- we have reached out to these folks, we left a letter and a business card as well within the past couple weeks at the house in the door. So, you know, we take public outreach very seriously. This is not a matter of hiding out from folks. We do a lot of neighborhood meetings. You know, we put the -- the Kevlar and take the Xanax on, you know, and go do the neighborhood meeting. It's not something that we are concerned about. It's a matter of trying to have a productive meeting, so -- 30 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 28 of 55 Seal: I can appreciate that. Follow up on the question -- question for you, again, Kurt. So, as far as -- as far as the school and -- and I ask this of you just to see what our purview is here. I think West Ada School District does us a disservice by saying that they basically can never turn anybody away. So, I do like the fact that Kuna has just come up and said we can't do it. We can't service these kids. I don't like what they are doing in the verbiage that they are using and the way they are going about it. I wish they would just strike that completely. But that puts us in a peculiar spot where now we have to determine the legality of this before we can determine that. If West Ada School District came out with something like Kuna School District did and simply said we cannot service these kids, I can't speak for the other Commissioners here, but I would be a hard no, absolutely not. So, Kurt, where does that put us in this standing? I mean the applicant's brought up a -- you know, a good point that basically they are kind of being held hostage where, you know, a school district is saying if you pay us enough money we will go ahead and let the kids in, but at the same time they are expressing that they cannot service the kids. So, I mean how -- how do we -- help me navigate that. Starman: Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. So, there is a couple thoughts. One is I think that -- that is part of your deliberation as you make a recommendation to the City Council. So, I think that is fair game, part of the findings for annexation is, you know, the impact on public services, so -- and whether annexation is in the best interest of the city altogether. So, I think that's fair to consider. I will leave about the comment -- maybe sort of an editorial comment on for the strategy Kuna School District are using and I think I will just leave it at what's already been said. It's a bit distasteful. I recall the issue the way Mr. Clark describes it. I think it was distasteful to the City Council and to others as well. It's kind of an interesting approach, but I will just leave it at that and you all make your own judgment. My recommendation is that you have -- this is part of your deliberation. You have information you received from the Kuna School District in the form of a letter. We didn't have anybody testify tonight, but you would have -- at least have the written comments. You had testimony from the applicant, Mr. Clark in particular, that provided a different viewpoint, including alternatives to the Kuna School District. I think you as a Commission -- you weigh that evidence as to whether or not there are adequate resources for school age children and impacts and whether -- you heard sort of conflicting arguments as to whether there are adequate services or will be or not, both today and going forward and, then, you -- you consider that evidence and you make your own determination what you conclude based upon the evidence you have received here tonight and in prior and written form and you use that evidence to make your best recommendation for Council. Seal: Thank you. Lorcher: Are you good? Seal: I am good for now. Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. F31 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 29 of 55 Smith: Yeah. Madam Chair, I just -- I did have a quick question. I just want to absolutely confirm. There is no other property other than this Rescue Ranch or -- or Jack Jack that is taking access off of this private road; is that right? Clark: That's my understanding, Commissioner. Smith: Okay. Thank you. Just want to double check. Seal: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Sorry -- Lorcher: That's fine. Seal: -- to go on and on on this one. So, on the -- the access road where there is -- it sounds like there is not going to be a shared access, would you be willing to fence that? Clark: Again -- against our property? Seal: Yes. Clark: Yeah. I don't see why -- yeah, I don't see why we wouldn't. Yeah. I mean I think we would have to. Seal: Okay. I mean to me if it's -- if -- if you are not going to share, it -- it's just -- it's going to look ridiculous to have those two side by side I personally think. So, I think fencing would help. Clark: We are going to do what we need to do to make sure our project's marketable. So, yeah, we are going to make our -- we are going to make it look good and -- yeah. Absolutely. Seal: Okay. Cool. I mean for the -- the folks that are representing Jack -- if I might. That are representing their -- I'm -- I -- I find it hard to believe that an agreement can't be made to -- to be perfectly honest, so -- I mean I can see that as -- you know, that's a gold mine there. Yeah, you want to get your money out of it, I get it, but I think the property owner there is doing the folks that live there are disservice by not helping to come to an agreement on it. So, I can't imagine they are offering nothing, but, you know, like either side, one -- you know, you want to get all you can and you want to spend the least amount to do it. So, hopefully, some kind of agreement can come out of that in order to serve the community instead of serve the individuals involved in this, so -- and, then, as far as the -- the -- the stub across the -- the Rawson Canal, if that's not vehicular traffic, could that be something that can -- a -- a small bridge that could be made for, you know, foot traffic, bike traffic, just interconnectivity along those lines? It's, F32 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 30 of 55 obviously, blocked or not fully connected for the time being, so that when that does develop in the future decades from now maybe that -- that -- that's not an issue. Clark: Commissioner Seal, it's my understanding that Boise Project does not allow pedestrian crossings on -- on their canals. Seal: Okay. Clark: That -- the only option there would be if it was a vehicular crossing and ACHD mandated it, then, as I understand it Boise Project will go along with it at that point, but they won't do a ped -- a ped crossing. Seal: Okay. And that's -- yeah. And I -- I -- I can appreciate that, so -- I mean if it's not within the law -- or not within, you know, the law that's there in order to provide for, then, that's -- that's the way it is. Just trying to -- you know me, anywhere you can bike or walk I -- I love that, so -- Clark: That's why I made sure to flag that it's your type of-- Seal: Yes. I was going to say, though, they might -- you might just start calling that the Commissioner Seal -- I guess I have made my mark somewhere. That is all I have for now. Thank you. Lorcher: Commissioner Rust. Oh. Commissioner Garrett, any other comments? Garrett: No. I would just like to thank you. I appreciate the comments about the school and, you know, I -- I would like to see more from Kuna, but, obviously, that limited amount of information that we just can't make a comment on. Clark: Thank you. Lorcher: Any other final thoughts? Clark: None from me. I think I have worn everybody out. Lorcher: All right. Thank you very much. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing, please? Seal: So moved. Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Summerlin West. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 33 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 31 of 55 Lorcher: I don't even know where to start. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I can soapbox for a second if you want to -- Lorcher: Okay. Smith: So, I guess -- I guess one -- one thing I want to head off before I get into specifics is I think we can all agree that we benefit when our politics have a little bit more decorum. So, I -- I want to -- this is going to tie into something that I'm going to -- I'm going to speak to, but the name calling, the -- the criticizing character of -- of an applicant or -- or anyone testifying I think is something that I really -- I really don't appreciate and I would like to see less of and I will say I do think, regardless of how many attempts have been made to get in touch, I do think it's going to be in your best interest, regardless of how this goes to City Council, I think it's going to be in your best interest to try to get in touch with the Mayers and to the Mayers if you are still on, I -- I think it's going to be in your best interest to try to, you know, get in touch -- or to connect with the applicant. I -- I appreciate -- same with -- with the Jack Jack owner, I would appreciate some more dialogue here. I think there are some issues that are -- are present development that are not the fault of the applicant themselves. I think there is some debate whether that's rent seeking, which I think is -- is kind of a detestable practice or whether there is just good faith -- faith disagreement regarding negotiation. But I think there is to -- to the -- the point that Kurt made I think there is genuine questions regardless of who is at fault whether this project itself is in the best interest of the city at this -- at this time. I -- I think -- I don't love the -- the view of -- if Kuna is not able to service, you know, students from -- from this area that -- I don't love the approach that, well, they can just go to West Ada or whether they can just do something else. The default really should be adequate -- is the kind of thinking that I have here. So, I -- I really don't -- to be honest know where I stand on this. I -- I think I -- I -- I think that's usually a better sign than some of the other projects that I have seen, Mr. Clark, that -- that you have brought forward. So, I think I -- I'm leaning towards supporting this, but I think there are a lot of issues that -- regardless of who is -- who is at fault, to use quotes, I -- I -- I have some -- some issues with this and there is some heartburn associated. I think I'm -- I'm in support of this, but -- but I -- I -- I don't know if I can champion it necessarily. Lorcher: Commissioner Rust. Rust: Madam Chair, a couple of things. I think that -- I don't see very many issues with this application, to be perfectly honest. This matches the area. It matches the step down from R-15 to the north down to R-8. I tend to agree with the applicant in wanting to strike those three conditions. I think the stub -- I just don't see a purpose that is served there. As regards the schools, I think Kuna School District would have come out 34 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 32 of 55 with stronger language if they didn't have room. This to me feels heavier on the rent seeking and -- and the pay-to-play than on actually telling us what they can and cannot do. It kind of feels like a blanket open hand from a smaller school district and so I don't -- I don't give that a lot of credence and I agree with everyone that said it would be great if property owners Jack Jack and Summerlin could have come together. That's -- that hasn't happened. It seems like it's been ongoing for multiple years, which is more than enough time for good faith negotiations to occur and the applicant -- I would hate to see my property rights abrogated because somebody was trying to hold my feet to the fire. So, I appreciate what you are saying as well, Commissioner Smith. On the whole I -- I like -- I like the -- the project. I think it matches where we are headed in south Meridian, specifically that area around Discovery Park. There is a lot of development happening there and -- and I lean strongly towards passing it with the applicant's recommend -- or request to remove 2, 3-C 3 and 3-D. Garrett: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Garrett. Garrett: Yeah. I just want to say that's exactly my feelings right there. I would second that and I won't go into it anymore, because it's -- no more time spent. Lorcher: I guess my feelings on this are twofold. I know that the city wanted some more diversity as far as style of products are involved and -- and -- and I understand that you want to invite all demographics to be able to live into a project, so if you can't afford a single family home it could be a townhome. But they are also offering smaller lots to really emulate a townhome that is just a smaller house with a smaller footprint. Not a big fan of the shared driveways and there is quite a few of those in here. You came up with a blank slate and yet there is at least four to six that I see in here. In regards to the R-4, the R-8, the R-15, 1 think those are semantics. You do meet the low density requirement but barely. I mean you are at 2.95 and the -- the -- it's -- it's a three is what is the maximum. So, you are -- you are right there. So, yes, you do fit the code, but just because it fits doesn't mean it's always in the best interest of the community. Like the other Commissioners I also support, you know, it would be nice to be able to have a shared access agreement to be able to come up with that, but you shouldn't be responsible if somebody is -- is not willing to work with you in a -- in a way that is in everybody's best interest. There should be common ground there. So, I'm also on the fence on this. I -- I don't know if continuing it would actually benefit anyone. I'm also in agreement with Commissioner Smith that reaching out to the Mayers to be able to answer their concerns and, you know, maybe trying once more with -- with Jack Jack to see if-- if that can work. But ACHD has given you their blessings. Seal: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Seal. F35] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 33 of 55 Seal: So, I'm -- yeah, I'm -- I'm conditioned to -- I'm with everybody else on that. I -- I think there is enough variation in here to -- to allow for that to -- to be stricken. So, as -- as far as the -- I mean as far as the transition I can see why they want to do an R-4 and R-2, instead of the R-8 abutting those large properties. I mean that's -- this is annexation. So, we -- we get one chance to get this right and those are large properties and they are part of, you know, the community that's out there. So, I can definitely see where that will make a difference, depending on how it was going to be implemented. 3-D -- I mean, obviously, you know, the -- the property owners don't want it. It's costly to put it in there and it's costly to maintain. So, if it can't be something that's just for foot traffic, then, I wouldn't -- wouldn't mind that going away. As far as the school is concerned, I mean I have -- I have -- I have worked with the Kuna School District in the past and they are just small. They -- they don't quite have their footing yet. They are not ready for this rapid growth. So, I don't think they are trying to grab money, I think they are just trying to figure this out until they can get something on the books that is lawful, to be perfectly honest. That's my opinion. So, they are small, they don't have a lot of schools, but they have a lot of kids, you know, and they are -- they have been vocal and they have come here and they have presented and they have given up, because, basically, we just ignore them every time and we let it go through. So, I sympathize for that. Again, I -- I think if West Ada School District came in and their viewpoint was we cannot support this subdivision, if they put it in black and white and said that, I would be a hard no. A hundred percent. Absolute hard no, so that -- as far as a continuance, you know, I would like to see a continuance personally so that they can work -- you know, give it one more try with Jack Jack properties. I'm not going to hold anybody hostage. If they can't get along that's just detrimental to, you know, all the community members on both sides. So, that's -- that's kind of ridiculous in my mind that some kind of agreement can't be sought, that -- you know. I mean the applicant needs to understand that, yeah, they got a piece of property there, it's pretty valuable in the right context, but the Jack Jack property owners need to understand that -- I mean they are either going to have this fenced in a 50 foot thing that doesn't make any sense to anybody in that community either, so can we just kind of get along and, you know, make a little money off that and move this thing forward? It just seems like that should be able to happen. But the other part -- as far as the public meeting, knowing that people don't actually have the ability to speak in your meetings I find that kind of shocking, to be -- honestly. You know, what if you have laryngitis, you know -- you know, what if -- what if you have something that -- sorry, I said that wrong. But what do you -- if you have something that, you know, prevents you from typing accurately or something or you don't understand it? I mean technology is intimidating to a lot of people. Speaking is not. I can talk to you with a microphone. I can talk out loud. I don't need a keyboard to do it. So, I -- I find that to be less than adequate as far as a public meeting goes. So, it would be nice to open that door again. So, if -- you know, in -- in those two contexts I think that a continuance would allow for some things to happen. Possibly. I don't know. Maybe the same outcome is going to happen, but if it were up to me I would -- I would move for a continuance, so those two things can happen and, then, they can reconsider some other things as well as they work through this process. Smith: Madam Chair? F36] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 34 of 55 Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I think the more Commissioner Seal spoke on that issue I think I'm beginning to -- to kind of come to that view as well. I think regarding Kuna School District having come before -- I have -- I have never seen them here and what -- that was before my time on the Commission. It's a different Commission now. The city council is different now. So, I can't speak to what happened in the past, but when -- there are a lot of things about this application that make me think of potential code changes or potential comp plan changes or policy use, but when -- when I see something that, you know, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, kind of sounds like rent seeking and there is no one here to explain, that -- that that kind of is the -- the perception that I get and I almost wonder if -- if there is a way for the city to take a policy stance and, again, I know the city wants to kind of avoid getting into the arguments and negotiations between people, but I -- I wonder if there is value in -- in kind of saying, hey, there -- there needs to be good faith negotiation and -- and whether you are, you know, kind of trying to -- to -- to put the screws to someone regardless of whether you are the applicant or the neighbor, I think it's -- it -- it's -- it just is not in line with kind of our -- our good neighbor rule and so I -- I can't speak to the negotiations that have been happened -- happening, whether they have been happening over years or a couple weeks, whether someone's trying to, you know, charge an exorbitant cost or whether there is an insultingly low offer. I can't speak to that. But the fact that there is clearly -- one or both sides of this feel like they have the -- they have the -- the -- the backing to just do as they please or to strong arm the other, I -- I think it's -- it really is resulting in a suboptimal application and I think that that's something that -- I think Commissioner Seal is -- is right on the money, I think it -- maybe this -- this doesn't change and if nothing can -- if nothing can happen and if Kuna School District doesn't -- doesn't want to show up and -- and kind of explain their side or if, you know, discussions with -- with the Mayers or with Jack Jack don't yield anything I think that's a conversation we can have and I don't think we can hold the developer hostage, but I -- I would really like to see an attempt being made to improve the outcome here, knowing that the Commission -- and, honestly, probably City Council based on what I have heard of past applications is kind of fed up with this approach. So, that's -- that's my take. That's my second soapbox. I will try to be more soft and quiet in the rest of this discussion, but -- Garrett: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Garrett. Garrett: Yeah. I'm not in agreement with that. I have been on a lot of calls -- Zoom calls where typing is the only way you can do it, because there have been a lot of participants. You know, 20, 30, 40 participants and it's the only way to keep a documentation and to keep the meeting going in a coherent manner. As far as continuation, I think that puts the applicant at a disadvantage. I see if he's made an honest attempt to reach out to these people, I -- I -- I don't know why -- or what a continuation would do, just -- it would, you know, further the cost of the development. 37 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 35 of 55 Lorcher: And, remember, our purview is what's in the best interest of the city and, you know -- or at this time. I mean it might be a great development, but is it a great development now when there is -- it seems like there is quite a few questions not answered. Commissioner Rust. Rust: Yeah. Just to point out that if we go for a continuance, even if they can come to a negotiation with Jack Jack, they are still going to have to go forward in this whole project as staff pointed out. I -- I'm -- I'm right with Brian, Commissioner Garrett, I -- I think that this is a good development and that a continuation doesn't really serve anybody in this situation. Lorcher: I mean I would think that they -- you wouldn't come to Council, whether it's Planning and Zoning or -- or City if -- if you haven't done your homework; right? But I -- you know, I don't know. I mean there -- there is some things here that some of us are not clearly comfortable with, so I don't -- I don't know the answer to that question. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I'm breaking what I just -- what I just promised to do, but just I guess to give some view to that, I think if -- you know, if -- if we were to -- to have to vote at this very moment and -- and we were to say we are not continuing, I think I would come in favor of -- of recommending approval. So, I guess in that sense the value of the continuation given that, I think there is some -- and I guess if this came back after continuation, nothing happened, I think I still would err on the side of -- of approval, unless I heard something from, you know, in -- in the intervening weeks that -- that was raised -- I think there is potential value in a continuation of -- of being able to approach those conversations with that in mind and ones that, hey, for the most part there is not much wrong with this in erring on the side of recommending approval. I think that might give some -- maybe not urgency, but give some -- some new purpose to come back to the table and to sort something out that might not have been there in the past. Again, whether it happens when it's a continuance or if this gets moved forward and -- and before this gets to Council that discussion happens, I -- I don't know if it's going to make a massive difference, but I think it's more of just a comfort level to what Madam Chair you -- you were speaking to. I come down on the side of the applicant in -- in kind of some of these discussions, but I -- I -- I'm not -- like I said, I'm not championing it and I -- I -- I think there is a comfort level issue of -- of I would recommend it, but I -- I would have some heartburn about it. Lorcher: But also in regard to Commissioner Seal's point that we have -- we have -- we have one chance to kind of get it right with annexation and, you know, the build out is 2034. So, I mean -- I know we are not the deciding body, but we are the recommending body to City Council. If we don't get it right now, then, the consequences are -- are going to be, you know, long-term issues, as opposed to short-term decisions. In regard to these three modifications that are in front of us on the screen right now, you know, F38] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 36 of 55 the first one I -- I addressed it. I don't think townhomes are necessary. I think the R-8, R-4, R-2 is semantics and the stub road across the bridge, they are already putting -- they already have two, but the school district and the surrounding subdivisions with private access to public access I think are the two issues that I -- I'm not comfortable with and I don't know if a continuation would help that. I mean all you can do is try; right? So, we can -- we -- it's better than -- I don't -- it's better -- I guess we can deny it as -- I don't know. I'm torn on this one, because there is so many moving parts to it to make that recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Rust. Rust: Madam Chair. I think that this application -- probably the best path forward is an up or down, because if a continuation is to try to resolve the private-public access, then, they are going to have to go redesign this whole thing anyways -- Lorcher: Correct. Rust: -- and so I would be pretty strongly against a continuance in that. I just think that's the fairest thing. Either we don't think this is the right thing because of the public- private access or we are not concerned and we are -- we don't want to handcuff them, kind of putting it in two opposite camps there, but I -- I would push strongly for a yes-no vote on this. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I have a thought and I think a motion to -- to -- if it fails we can try something else. Lorcher: Okay. Smith: I understand -- I think that -- I understand Commissioner Rust's and Commissioner Garrett's concerns, but I think I'm also kind of -- think to the purpose of the Commission on things like annexation -- and really it's to help do some homework for City Council and I think as the recommending body I -- I think there is value in -- I would rather see this pushed out two weeks and if nothing happens it gets moved on, than, we recommend up or down, this goes to City Council. There is work that could have been done in research and -- and conversations that could have happened that might make City Council deny this and I think, you know, we have seen some up or down votes go to City Council that are denied on the basis -- or continued there on the basis of unresolved questions and so I think there is value in continuing it here and saying -- I don't know if it's two weeks, depending on the schedule, but I guess that's a question that I have is will we be able to continue this two weeks and if -- if there is a resolution that happens and they have to redesign it I think that's for the best for the city and regarding annexation and that's -- that's really the priority here. So, I think -- I guess my question before I make a motion is -- is are we able to continue it two weeks? Is that possible? F39] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 37 of 55 Lomeli: Madam Chair, Commission, we would be able to schedule it for November 21 st. Smith: With that in mind, then, I'm going to throw this out and I won't -- my feelings won't be hurt if it's ruled down. Seal: Real quick, Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Seal. Seal: If -- if you do -- if -- if you are going to go for the continuance, please, manner -- do it in such a way that we are not going to open the floor to everything that we have already hashed out, just to what the concerns are, please. Thank you. Starman: Madam Chair, may I interject before -- it sounds like we are getting ready for a motion here, so just as a reminder if you do choose to continue we need to reopen the public hearing first, then, continue, so -- because there are two motions. This other piece is probably unsolicited advice by this -- well, maybe give a thought. You know, typically for a continuance is you need additional time to deliberate or to understand or you need additional facts, not so much that -- to provide time for others to negotiate deals and so forth. So, I think in particular if you can -- you know, if there are specific facts you need, for example -- this is just hypothetical -- that if you are still not clear on the school district issue, you know, perhaps you want more information about that or maybe you want to invite a representative from the Kuna School District to be here in two weeks, those are legitimate reasons for a continuance and so I would just encourage you to kind of latch on to concrete things like that where these are facts or additional information you need to make an informed decision. I will leave it at that. That's just sort of some unsolicited advice. Smith: Thank you. Yes. Lorcher: All right. So, when I make a motion to open the public hearing that's inviting the applicant back up or no? Just to have a continuance? Starman: So, Madam Chair, you are not required to invite the applicant up. You are -- certainly that's within your purview if you wish to, but it doesn't require that. So, basically, it would be two motions. The first motion would be to reopen the public hearing. That requires, obviously, sufficient affirmative votes. If that passes, then, you would have a second motion to continue and, as I suggested, if you can find -- whatever concrete information you are looking for in two weeks would be helpful. Lorcher: All right. Well, let's take the pulse of the Commission. I motion to -- or can I can I take a motion to open the public hearing? Smith: So moved. F40] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 38 of 55 Seal: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to open the public hearing. Starman: Madam Chair, I think because there is some disagreement amongst you -- it sounds like there might be some different viewpoints amongst the Commissioners, this might be appropriate for roll call vote. Lorcher: Okay. For -- Starman: Well, we have a motion on the floor that's been made and seconded to reopen the public hearing. Because there is some differing views I think I would recommend that you ask the -- Madam Clerk to do roll call, just so we know exactly where our base stands. Lorcher: Okay. Madam Clerk. Taking advice from Kurt to do a roll call, if we were to do a continuance what is the feelings from this Commission. Roll Call: Garrett, nay; Seal, yea; Rust, nay; Smith, yea; Lorcher, yea; Grace, absent; Sandoval, absent. Starman: Madam Chair, the motion passes, the public hearing has been reopened and so you now can entertain a motion for a continuance for two weeks if you choose. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. TWO ABSENT. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Okay. Smith: After considering -- sorry, actually. I move to continue -- apologies. Try that a third time. Madam Chair, I move to continue File No. H-20 -- oh, that's the wrong -- I move to continue File No. H-2024-0023 to two weeks -- so, that would be the -- November the 21 st in order to allow testimony from a representative from Kuna School District. To allow for additional fact finding and testimony regarding the disputed account of the -- of the public hearing -- or of the community public meeting and to allow for additional fact finding and testimony regarding the disputed private road to the immediate north of the property. If I got that right. Seal: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and second to continue File 20-0023 for the aforementioned items. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? Rust: Nay. 41 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 39 of 55 Lorcher: And I will say aye. So, the motion carries. Starman: Madam Clerk, you -- Madam Clerk, you have all the votes registered? Did you hear -- Lomeli: Yes, we do. Starman: Okay. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: All right. Commissioners, it's 8:15. Does anybody need a break or should we carry on? You want to take a break? All right. We will take five minutes until 8:20. (Recess: 8:15 p.m. to 8:20 p.m.) 8. Public Hearing for Pine 43 West (H-2024-0038) by CSHQA, located at SW Corner of N. Webb Ave. and E. Fairview Ave. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment within 300' of a residential use. Lorcher: All right. Thank you, everyone. To continue on we are going to open Item No. 2024-0038 Pine 43 West for a conditional use permit for a drive-thru near a residential area at Webb and Fairview and we will begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. As you mentioned this is a conditional use permit for a drive-thru within 300 feet of an existing residential use, which is located on the west boundary of this particular property. The site consists of 2.18 acres of land, currently zoned C-G in the city and it's located on the southwest corner of North Webb and East Fairview Avenue. This property was annexed in 2017 as part of the Pine 43 development. As part of that annexation request there was a development agreement that currently runs with development of this property. So, the site plan that's shown tonight is consistent with the concept plan that is in that DA. You can see here on the future land use map that the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as mixed-use community and staff finds that the proposed commercial uses that have already developed to the east of the site and proposed for this particular property is consistent with that land use designation. Access to this development will come off of North Webb Avenue -- Webb I should say in this location here, which aligns with the existing access to the east with the other commercial portion of this development and, then, the drive-thru itself is actually for Pad B or the southern portion of the site on this building that you see here. The applicant has gone ahead and showed you the additional building on this site, but there is no drive-thru plan or -- proposed for that area, it's just roughly showing staff how it could potentially develop in the future and that site owner requires CZC and design review. So, for tonight's purposes we are only discussing the southern portion here along with the drive-thru. F42 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 40 of 55 One unique thing this particular drive-thru is the applicant has indicated in their narrative that it is for pick up only. So, you, basically, order on your -- your app and you drive in and get it and pick up your food at the window. So, there is -- it's not anticipated to have a menu board or I guess speakers to disrupt the adjacent residential to the west. Staff did raise -- pose that question to Commission in the staff report that if you feel that you want this to continue functioning that way that -- or if you think it may go the other way with a menu board and a speaker, that you may consider requiring additional queuing on the site, but for all intents and purposes of conversation staff finds that this drive-thru does meet the requirements of UDC standards. The applicant does not have a specific user in mind for this tenant space, but they have indicated that they anticipate a restaurant going in here and so, therefore, they have based their parking ratio based on a restaurant use occurring in this area. So, the site plan does depict 43 parking stalls, which is in excess of UDC standards and also the proposed landscaping that you see here on the site does comply with UDC standards as well. So, essentially, the code requires a 25 foot buffer along Fairview, 20 foot -- 20 foot buffer along Webb and, then, also along the south boundary is Wilson Street, which was originally a local street when this project was approved, but has since been reclassified as a collector roadway. The applicant has provided some elevations as part of their application submittal tonight. Again I have looked at the public record. I did not see anyone providing a written testimony. One unique factor with this site and going back to the site plan I would just mention to the Commission that the applicant will be seeking City Council waiver to reduce the buffer along the west boundary to that residential use. I think this body recalls that whenever we have commercial zoning adjacent to a residential use you have to put a 25 foot land use buffer in and, again, as you can see the way they have Pad A designed they are asking for a reduction and that buffer does vary anywhere from five feet to ten feet. As part of the application submittal we did receive a -- some -- a written -- some written verification that the applicant -- or the owner of that multi-family is in agreement with the reduced buffer. So, again, if -- after you make your determination on this CUP tonight, then, the applicant will have the ability to seek Council review of this -- basically appeal your decision to City Council and have them take action on that buffer. Also looking at the hearing outline this evening, it looks like staff inadvertently said you guys were the recommending body, but you are actually the approving body on this conditional use permit tonight. So, when you make your motion if you would just clarify that on the record that you are, indeed, approving the CU -- or making a decision on -- on this application tonight. With that I will go ahead and conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Good evening. Marsh: Good evening. Jim Marsh. CSHQA Architects. 200 Broad Street. Also in attendance our representative from the developer and the landscape architect and we are pleased to bring forward to you today Pine 43 West. Just have a few things that will flip through rather quickly. See, if that goes down. Arrows working? Real quick, just -- this is an extension of the Pine 43 retail development that occurred to the east of this particular project. Project highlighted here in kind of this orange color. The east portion is just finishing the completion and we are kind of -- it -- the site is bisected by Webb F43] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 41 of 55 Street. This is the most current aerial that we could get that shows the multi-family to the west and some multi-family to the east. We did kind of ghost in a little bit of the site plan so we can kind of get a little bit of an orientation first to what's adjacent to our property. A little bit of history on the property as well. When the townhomes went in there is a long history of cooperation between this developer and the adjacent multi- family developer. They had challenges with stormwater space, also with -- challenges with pressurized irrigation. Our developer here with the Pine 43 West project gave them some access to additional storm drain on their site, as well as connections to pressurized irrigation. Like I say, a long history of cooperation between these two parcels. And one of the unique pieces is due to the alignment of Webb it takes a pretty good jog as you can see to the west aligned across the street, really pinches down the top of the site and so in order to get the -- the setbacks for the landscaping off of Webb, the parking and, then, have a sizable building that's -- that's viable, that's where we are asking to encroach slightly into the required setback for -- adjacent to a residential property, as -- if it's commercial property it would be fine. See the residential between is also sandwiched between another commercial property just further to the west. It's kind of a sliver of residential between two commercial properties. We do have a revised landscape plan. We believe this landscape plan addresses all the conditions that were in the staff report. We are in agreement with those conditions as well. We are providing a robust landscaping -- dense landscape screen, as well as a fence all along the western boundary. Coming out of the neighborhood meeting and some comments from ACHD, one of the items we did do was we adjusted the location of the drive-thru on the southern pad to align with the drive aisles. If I went back -- Lorcher: You might want to try the arrows. Marsh: There we go. So, if you kind of look at where the L is in Wilson Lane, that's the alignment of the drive-thru directly above that. So, cars that are exiting the drive-thru are actually lined up with that drive aisle between the residential portions to the side. We have a couple of images here that just kind of give idea of kind of what is anticipated for the architecture style that we have. Again, it's a continuation of the architecture style that we have in the east with just a slightly warmer tone. Also doing architecture here with nicer materials on the backsides. Buildings are positioned to -- towards the residential areas so they can screen the noise and screen all the parking lots and stuff as well. So, the backsides of the buildings do have service doors, but they are very rarely used, so it is kind of the quiet side of the development. Again elevations on this are slightly smaller. We tried to be respectful to the neighbors. So, the buildings to the east are slightly taller. These came in -- our footprints shrank a little bit in order to get it on this tight site. We also brought the height of the buildings down slightly. So, in Building A, which is the closest to the residential, top of the regular parapets around 18, the top of some of the tower elements around 22. This particular building is about 20 to 24. So, still relatively short for commercial buildings. And, then, this kind of depicts a couple of pictures of that south and that drive-thru. Again we are looking kind of for a limited service drive-thru at this time. There is no tenant identified. The developer also has some drive-thrus on the Pine 43 regional. They have some that have a drive-thru window that they are very particular about their stacking and the type of use and so it F44] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 42 of 55 had been approached for people, but if they are not the right use they have not gone forward with those tenants. So, they are very particular about the tenants that they have. Again elevations as well. Enlarged robust, again, on the landscape side and if there is any questions concerning the landscaping our landscape architect here is, again, willing to answer any questions. Finally, you know, we have trash enclosures. These are consistent with the rest that's in the development with -- with stone on them, full six foot type of trash enclosures, as well as the lighting is going to be consistent with the lighting that's in the adjacent Pine 43, sharp cut-off LED and if we see that the photometrics feel like they have equal air, we are willing to put any kind of shielding towards neighbors. That kind of concludes a real quick flip through. If there is anything you would like me to re-address I would stand here for any questions you might have. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I have a kind of a double barrel question for the applicant and for -- for staff. So, I see that -- it says that your written testimony in agreement with staff report. I just want to make sure we are clear regarding the -- determining if redesign is necessary or if a restriction should be placed on the use and future uses to not allow ordering and queuing on site. Do you have any issues with a condition that prevents any future use for ordering and queuing on site and I guess my question to staff is have we done that elsewhere for consistency sake? Marsh: I guess it would be kind of a touchy -- of exactly what that is. For example, literally across the lane it's just about on where the words are, Stella's Ice Cream is right there. They do have an ordering board, but they have fairly low -- they don't have a lot of stacking and there has not been any kind of issues with the drainage pieces. So, I think what we would rather have is leave it a little bit open and we will work with staff as those tenants come in to determine if they are the -- kind of the correct use and if we can have those tenants, then, bring in a use case of what they are stacking, what they are ordering, would be -- we would like to try to keep it as open as possible. It may not even be a food use. We did -- as -- as staff said we said we went with a restaurant. The only reason we said it was a restaurant is we wanted to calculate the parking to be sufficient for a restaurant. This is a different service use whether it's a financial one or others that are requiring a drive-thru, it would require even less. I think we were just kind of hedging our bets. History is -- just recent history going through the pandemic things, finding drive-thrus for all types of tenants is getting more and more critical. As some of these things occur there is fewer people -- people find that it's a health issue if they can pick some things up through a drive-thru and we are also finding a lot of order stuff is happening that I know in some like the Chipotle's and some of the other pieces that we have had, they -- all of the pick up is just through preordered by phone and you just pick it up at the window. So, you don't have a queue of people trying to figure out what they are trying to order. You don't have the ordering speakers and such like that. So, that's kind of where we are kind of strategizing this. I did forget to say, obviously, F45] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 43 of 55 earlier that we do have a support letter, too, from the adjacent multi-family developer that supports both the -- the setback and -- and the buffers. Lorcher: Commissioner Smith, did you get your question answered? Smith: One half I guess with a question for staff. Having kind of a restriction on maybe I guess to be more specific ordering -- made to order hot food or something similar. Have we have done something like that before elsewhere? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we have. If you recall the Chipotle off of-- Lorcher: Overland and Meridian. Parsons: -- one of those -- Ten Mile -- it was one of those where we said -- you don't have that now, but in the future if you want to add that, then, you are coming back and modifying your CUP, so that we can get another bite at the apple and see how it will function in the future and see if we have to address that stacking. So, yes, there are options that we have done on occasion. Smith: Thank you. Lorcher: All right. Thank you very much. Marsh: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have Eric Centers. Lorcher: You are good? Okay. Lomeli: No one else has signed up. Lorcher: All right. Did you have anything else that you wanted to add or are you good? And you are as well? Okay. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Smith: So moved. Seal: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Pine 43. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. F46] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 44 of 55 Lorcher: I do enjoy Stella's Ice Cream over in that corner and, actually, they did it -- if it's a continuation of what you are doing, the outdoor patio between that and the -- the tall skinny apartment buildings going to the west, it's a nice open space and so if you are able to, you know, replicate that with these buildings, I think it would, you know, kind of fit into the area that -- that you are doing. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I -- I second a lot of that. I think just the -- the one thing I would -- I would like to maybe put some rail guards in is it seems like I -- I don't necessarily have an issue with Stella's or things that are -- are quick to kind of produce and I don't know what legal language to put in or you know, how to phrase the motion specifically, but I would like to put some potential rail guards or safeguards to -- to limit maybe the creep of Stella's and maybe a Jersey Mike's or -- I'm not saying this is what's going to happen, as the food is more complex the risk of stacking increases and so I -- I would like to try to find some way if we can kind of just put some safeguards on there and if they want to pursue that kind of opportunity, we just have a little bit extra ability to, you know, have a look at it and -- and kind of, then, open up rather than leaving things too open and vague and, then, going, oh, gosh -- Lorcher: There is a -- there is a full-on street between the two developments; right? Smith: Yeah. It's regarding the -- the stacking as a whole and the design for stacking, not necessarily its relation to the other development, but I'm just saying as a type, you know, ice cream -- you order it, you put the scoop in, it's a very quick turnaround. But if you are ordering, for example, to -- to a further extent you are in hot food, you know, there is time to put, you know, a burger on the grill to cook, et cetera, I -- I don't know where the line is and maybe that's -- maybe it's at the hot food line, I don't -- I don't know, but there is -- there is an outcome of -- that I think increases the risk of stacking that would be better to try to avoid or to just to limit. It's not going to make or break the -- the -- the thing for me, I just think it might be in the benefit of the city to have some extra safeguards on that. Lorcher: Bill, does that come into play with the certificate of occupancy at all as far as -- like we don't know what it's going to be; right? So, if it is a -- a multi-layered restaurant that, you know, cook to order type thing and it takes ten minutes for each one to come through, you decide based -- based on the application on the certificate of occupancy, does that have any play to, you know, what it ends up being as far as a business is concerned? Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the -- the Commission, it -- it does. Like I said, there isn't a use here, so what you are acting on is the drive-thru and a drive-thru can mean a bank, a drive-thru can mean a dry cleaner, a drive-thru can mean a -- you know, a restaurant or it can be a restaurant that has sandwiches, that makes burgers, F47] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 45 of 55 that has ice cream, that serves coffee, it's -- all of those things fit into a restaurant. So, there is a full gamut of things in the code. Again, those uses are permitted in the zone. It's really the accessory drive-thru that goes along with the use. So, yes, whenever they have a tenant identified they will have to come to the city, design that space per that tenant, that occupant, and, then, yes, we will determine what that use will be in the future. So, it is difficult to say do this, but don't do that with the drive-thru in particular, because, again, your purview is the drive-thru. We don't know what the use that will be associated with the drive-thru is. So, that's why staff is kind of -- and think about this. Right now we are setting it up to be a rapid drive-thru lane. I was at Council last night for the Raising Cane's and they were explaining how they rapidly get people through the lane -- the line. Certainly I think when Chipotle was in front of you they explained the same thing. You order with your app, you get a -- a text saying your order is ready, go to the drive-thru, pick it up and you are on your way. Should not be hardly any wait time for that type of scenario and that's why we were very careful to say, well, if you are going to add a menu board and speakers in the future or somewhat change how this is to operate, then, you need to come back. So, that's really the -- the safeguard, the best way to proceed in staff's opinion. If that's how the rest of the Commission feels. Lorcher: So, Commissioner Smith, we are really just approving the drive-thru, not the -- not the intended use. Smith: Madam Chair, I guess just -- if I could get some clarity on -- my understanding is is we are approving the -- the drive-thru, but we can put conditions on a future use of the drive-thru, is that -- not the intended use of -- of the -- the building itself, but potentially the drive-thru, is that not -- Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the -- you are putting a condition on how it should operate. Seal: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Seal. Seal: And I think that's what you were talking about and that's what I remember is basically if you are going to put -- if you are going to put a menu board and a -- and a speaker to order, that's different than what we are talking about here and if they wanted to do that they are going to have to come back in, modify the conditional use permit. So, what we are -- what we would be approving is exactly what has been stated here, which is -- you have -- you have your app, you get a text, you go pick it up and so that's -- that's the quick part of it. You are not sitting in a drive aisle trying to figure out what's going on and you don't have people stacking and figuring out what's in there or not in their bag and stuff like that, so -- and if -- I actually when -- when I was down in Hurricane, Utah, there was a restaurant down there called the Pig's Ear that is almost identical to this. I mean just in the -- in the drawings and concepts that they have there and it worked really well. So, I mean -- and you can see we -- we went in to eat, but you could see people would pull up and park in different places and not get out of their car, F48] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 46 of 55 which we thought was strange, until we figured out that they were just parked there until they went and picked up their food, so -- I wish there were other restaurants in the valley that were like this, because like if you go to like Bardenay in Eagle it's crazy trying to get in the door because of the amount of people that are going in there to just grab a sack and walk out, so -- I -- I like the concept personally, so -- and I think that the direction of traffic and flow and the fact that it's going to be -- or the hope I should say that it's going to be a quick transaction lends itself well to the space. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I -- I think we are aligned regarding the -- the ideal use. I -- I -- I think my question is more just -- I guess some confusion over what the staff report currently recommends. If there is any modification necessary the language of -- and I will read this out and I guess explain what I meant. The Commission should determine if a redesign is necessary to accommodate more stacking or if a restriction should be placed on the use and future uses to not allow ordering and queuing on site. That implies to me that as presented in the staff report there is no recommendation either way to restrict the future use and I -- like many things in life maybe I'm overthinking this, but I just want to ensure that that is the case that is presented in the staff report and maybe I'm just misreading this. Parsons: No, Madam -- Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, you are correct, that is not conditioned currently. We are putting it on you to determine if you want to put that safeguard in and so simply if you want to move forward with that, then, you can certainly just say applicant shall come back and modify the CUP if they add a menu board and speaker in the future. And, again, we can wordsmith and look at a different -- find that language in a previous staff report and include that as a condition of approval. Smith: Okay. Parsons: Just needs to be included in your motion if you feel like one is warranted. Smith: Thank you. Okay. I think -- I think we are -- we are aligned then. We are good. Rust: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Rust. Rust: I would be -- I'm in favor of this. I like the design. I don't feel a need to put a restriction on it. I think if there is going to be something that changes that -- that ends up creating more queuing or stacking that it's going to have to come before us anyways. I think it would be difficult for us as a body to come up with a motion that would sufficiently differentiate between acceptable uses on acceptable uses and I would tend to defer to the wisdom marketplace. This is -- there is no way they can redesign this to F49] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 47 of 55 turn it into a Starbucks. It's just not happening. And so I think it's going to attract the kinds of uses that will fit in line with what we all hope goes in there that doesn't stack. So, that's where I come down on this application. Lorcher: Okay. Very good. Thank you. Smith: Madam -- Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Just to clarify from my understanding of what staff said is that if there was something that was changed -- that would increase stacking currently without putting the limit they would not have to come back before us. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is -- I think -- what I think the discrepancy is I think some of us are assuming something is already in the staff report and some of us are assuming it's not. If they were to put a menu board and speaker up they would not have to -- without any -- any modification they would not have to come back before the Commissioners if-- Parsons: Commissioner Smith, you are correct. Smith: Okay. Cool. All right. But I guess that's why I am in the position of putting a requirement. I think it's to ensure that it would have to come back if they put something that would significantly increase stacking and I think maybe just the menu board and speakers is the approach that has been taken in the past with Chipotle and other things like that. So, I guess that's just what I'm -- I'm looking for and hoping we can put that on. So, at the very least if they want to put a menu board up -- if Stella's wants to do it they can just come back and ask for it and we can, then, evaluate that on the merit. Seal: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Yeah. Madam Chair, this -- and -- and that's why I brought that up. I mean to me that's pretty easy to put in there. I mean I -- I could see somebody could come in and take advantage of this, because -- I mean, to be honest, I don't think it's set up and adequate for what I would, you know, say could -- you know, if a very popular place went in there and they made it a full blown drive-thru, number one, the circulation isn't there for it. Number two, the stacking would be a mess. Lorcher: Right. Seal: So, that would not be good for the community or the surrounding area, so -- but I do think that, you know, for the use that they have outlined here I think it's, you know, very adequate. So, I can -- at least a small amount of language in there for any changes that, again, I -- I think, you know, a speaker and a menu board, if they want to go that far, then, they need to come back in. That's all. But, you know, I don't think 50 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 48 of 55 that's a big ask, because, you know, again, I just -- I don't think it's adequate as a traditional drive-thru as you think about a -- you know, any kind of coffee establishment, you know, pick your flavor on that where they have lines that wrap around the block or God forbid an In-N-Out. Not that there is anything wrong with eating there, but, you know, something along those lines. It's just -- it's, obviously, not adequate for that. So, I think some small safeguards that prevent anything like that from going in are -- would be good. Lorcher: Okay. I will try a motion then. Seal: Okay. Lorcher: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File No. 2024-0038 Pine 43 West conditional use permit for the hearing date of November 7th, 2024, with the following conditions: That the -- the current conditional use permit be pick up service only and if future tenant requires a speaker or menu board with additional stacking, that they come back and -- back to Council for a modification. Seal: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve Pine 43 West with a condition on the pick up service and drive-thru lane. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 9. Public Hearing for Addison Circle Subdivision (H-2024-0040) by Centurion Engineers, Inc., located at 4535 N. Black Cat Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 1.87 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of seven (7) building lots and one (1) common lot on 1.87 acres of land. Lorcher: Next item on the agenda is Addison Circle Subdivision for an annexation of 1.87 acres and a preliminary plat off of Black Cat Road and we will begin with the staff report. Parsons: Madam Chair, great segue. Thank you. The next item is Addison Circle. It's an annexation and a preliminary plat. I did want to go on the record to just let this body know that the address was incorrect on the agenda that went out. It was a scrivener's error. We had mistakenly noticed it as 4635 North Black Cat Road and, actually, the address is 4535. So, we have coordinated with legal and the clerk's office, so we will get that corrected as this transitions to City Council, but I just wanted to clarify on the F51 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 49 of 55 record that the -- the address was wrong. As I mentioned to you, this is 1.87 acres and it's currently RUT in Ada county here. You can see on the future land use map that it is currently medium density residential on the future land use map and in that particular land use we anticipate densities between three and eight dwelling units to the acre and this particular project comes in tonight at 3.74. So, definitely, on -- meets that threshold on -- on the low end. The applicant is here to -- so, you can see here there is some existing structures on the site and those will be removed upon development and the applicant will be scraping that and -- to develop the site with seven residential lots. Lot sizes range in size from anywhere -- approximately 4,000 square feet up to 7,000 square feet and home sizes are anticipated to be anywhere from 1,800 square feet to 2,200 square feet. I want to step back real quickly just to make mention that you can see here that this property does border an existing irrigation facility that -- it's actually an HOA lot within the Oaks -- Oak Creek Subdivision and you can see in this lower graphic here, aerial -- or photograph -- photograph here that the sidewalk is actually -- just doesn't extend across the frontage of that common lot. So, staff has placed a requirement on this developer to extend that 15 feet of sidewalk, so that there is continuity in the existing area. Also mention to the Commission that they -- you know, typically when we have frontages on arterials we try to get ten foot multi-use pathways along the frontage, but given the existing built environment out there to the south and the subdivision to the north, there is currently five foot detached sidewalks, so staff is only recommending that the applicant construct a five foot sidewalk as part of their development. Because the site is under five acres in size there is really no open space requirements per the city code, but the applicant is required to put in a 25 foot wide landscape buffer along their frontage improvements and dedicate the required right of way per ACHD. The applicant will also be seeking a City Council waiver because their cul-de-sac length exceeds 500 feet, so they -- and they are aware of that, so, essentially, their cul-de-sac is 45 feet over what code requires. So, it's pretty insignificant in staff's opinion and, then, also as part of that extension in granting that waiver we are recommending that they extend a -- basically a five foot sidewalk from the end of that cul-de-sac to the adjacent sidewalk along Black Cat Road to allow for that 45 foot extension as a mitigation. So, Council can approve that waiver. Again here you can see the landscape plan that they are proposing. Staff has conditioned them to meet all UDC requirements for those frontage improvements. Have looked at the public record, did not see any public testimony on this particular property and the applicant is in agreement with all conditions in the staff report. With that I will go ahead and conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Good evening. Renteria: Good evening, Madam Chairman. Thank you, Commissioners, for the opportunity to speak in front of you. My name is Robert Renteria. 4306 East Divide Pass, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. 1 will keep this brief. It's been a long night for everybody. We just -- I just want to thank you for the revision a little bit for this project. We wanted to make sure that the continuity around what we are developing is maintained. There is a significant need for what we are going to build, which is two on suites on the main floor for -- for older parent, adult children that can't afford to be out 52 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 50 of 55 somewhere else. So, it's going to be one family under one roof and it -- which makes it easy for financing when you get to the final stages of financing. So, we want to make sure that we are really supporting what's in the subdivision already, not over building, not modernizing too much, but continuing the continuity of what's already there and at our public meeting we had some really good support and comments. The main comments that they had was -- their concern was doing development construction through the subdivision, but we have the ability not to do that and so we definitely give our word that that's not going to happen. If you have any technical questions we do have Anna Canning from Centurion who has done all the work for us, so if you have any questions I would love to hear them. Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? Thank -- thank you very much. Renteria: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have -- oh. Did you want her to speak as well? Okay. Come on up. You still have some time. Just state your name and address for the record. Canning: Anna Canning. Centurion Engineers. 2323 South Vista Avenue, Suite 206, Boise. And I went from Jack Jack to Bear Hunter Holdings. I get great names today. But I did want to just point out one thing and it was already said, but this is basically continuing what's there. It's an in-fill subdivision on the west side of Black Cat. It really completes that fabric and I just wanted to say that time is right, chairman. So, the timing is right and as Mr. Parsons mentioned we are in agreement with the staff conditions. So, if you had any questions be happy to answer them as well. Lorcher: Are we going to lose all the mature trees and the -- and the historical farmhouse? Canning: I'm not aware it was an historical farmhouse. Lorcher: Well, let's just say old. Canning: I think that the existing home is going. We are going to do -- have an arborist go out to the site and look at the trees and see which ones we can save, which ones need to come out, because they are not good trees and, then, we will mitigate as code requires for the others. Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody here to -- that would like to testify? Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one else has signed up. F53] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 51 of 55 Lorcher: Robert, did you want to make any other comments this evening? Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Smith: So moved. Garrett: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Addison Circle. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: It -- it fits and, you know, I know it's just probably an old -- old farmhouse, but I'm privy -- I mean, you know, I hate to see those go away in some capacity, because that's what made Meridian Meridian and there -- that farmer probably had 40 acre -- 80 to 120 acres at one time and, you know, the subdivision behind it or, you know, to the side of it has -- has changed and get rid of all of our old little farmhouses, then, we are anywhere USA. So, that kind of bums me out, but, you know, it's -- it's not going to make me not approve this project. Also mature trees are kind of hard to find -- you know, hard to find and since I just bought little trees for big money, you know, that could have some value there. Any other comments from Commissioners? Motion? Seal: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Make sure I'm on the right one here. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approve -- approval to the City Council on File No. H-2024-0040 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 7th, 2024, with no modifications. Rust: Second. Lorcher: Can I clarify? Is it four zero or four one? Seal: Four zero is what I have on the paper. Lorcher: Can you confirm that, Bill? Seal: It's also on the agenda. It's four zero. Lorcher: Four zero? All right. Do I have a second on four zero? Rust: Second. F54] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 52 of 55 Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve -- oh, that's why, because I'm looking at the next one. Excuse me. File No. 0040, Addison Circle. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 10. Public Hearing for Apex Phenomenal (H-2024-0041) by Brighton Corporation, generally located on the north side of E. Lake Hazel Rd. approximately 1/4 mile west of S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 64 building lots and 11 common lots and (1) other lot for future development on 16.15 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. Lorcher: All right. Now we are going to do four one. Apex Phenomenal for a preliminary plat near Lake Hazel and Locust Grove and we will start with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The last item on the agenda tonight is Apex Phenomenal. This project is for -- requested for a preliminary plat. Site consists of 16.15 acres of land currently zoned R-15 and as you mentioned it's located -- generally located on the north side of Lake Hazel Road, approximately a quarter mile west of South Locust Grove Road. This property was rezoned in 2020 from R-4 to R -- to the R-15 zone that you see today and it was also part of the overall Apex -- or we call it Pinnacle. There is many names out there, but we -- it did come in as Apex as part of the annexation and it -- it was required to enter into a development agreement. So, the applicant is just here with more specifics on how they intend to develop this R-15 piece. So, this is the first plat for it. Current Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is medium high density residential. In that designation we anticipate residential densities between eight and 12 dwelling units to the acre and this particular project this evening comes in at -- right at eight. So, we are right, again, on the low end, but still -- so, probably more dense than what we typically see that is in a multi-family project. So here -- again, here is the preliminary plat. Main access will be coming in from a private street to -- to serve the home. So, the 64 lots the applicant is proposing the homes are entered to be single family attached and detached. So, a mix of residential types here, which is consistent to what they actually have constructed on the east side of the site across from Apex Avenue that you see here on the screen. The -- the proposed plan also has 11 common lots. One thing I would like to mention to the Commission is this additional larger lot applicant doesn't have any details for that at this time. Maybe a continuation of this same product on that portion, but they are recording it as one lot currently and, then, they will come back with a future application when they decide how they want to further subdivide that. Because the development is over that five acre threshold the applicant is required to provide 15 percent open space and two amenity points per the UDC. The plat before you tonight shows 2.27 acres of qualified open space, which exceed UDC standards and they are also providing four amenity points as well. You can see some of the details of -- of what they are doing with the amenities in that central open space and, again, that mirrors what's happening on the 55 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 53 of 55 east side of the road. Also like to mention that the residents in this portion of Apex also have the benefit of additional open space and amenities that are currently planned or will be constructed in the near future. So, again, one cohesive design as the applicant moves forward. So, I wanted to -- here is the open space exhibit, along with some of the pedestrian connectivity that we can envision. Also like to mention that Lake Hazel is currently being improved or may be done at this time. So, those improvements along that frontage are completed already per cooperative development agreement with ACHD and those improvements do carry all the way to the Meridian Road intersection as well. Again more details of how they intend to use that -- that private open space and, then, here are the elevations, which, again, are consistent with what's being developed out there. Staff has looked at the public record and did not see any public testimony on this and the applicant, again, is in agreement with all staff's recommended conditions of approval. With that we are recommending approval and I will stand for any questions you may have. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Good evening. McNutt: Good evening. Amanda McNutt. 2929 West Navigator Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Do you have our presentation? There we go. Okay. All right. So, the first thing I wanted to talk about is kind of what has already happened out at Pinnacle. I know you guys kind of have gotten a lot of updates on this recently because we keep coming back with more projects. As Bill mentioned, Lake Hazel is now complete and open, so that's really exciting. I know a lot of people out there have been waiting for that. Here we notice -- or we note that the roundabout there is open. We have the eighth mile at recreation and, then, Lake Hazel and Meridian is all the way through there. We have mentioned it a couple times as well that we have the Gem Prep Charter School out there complete and operational. Meridian Library just had their opening a while back and the Sony Amphitheater is also underway out there as well. Sublimity and the mini roundabout at Crescendo is shown here. It's also built. This is a -- a graphic that we actually took a drone footage of so you can kind of see the new beautiful pavement out there and, then, also that internal street connectivity is all complete as well. So, this is the latest development in the Pinnacle community, as Bill has already described, at 16.15 acres, 64 single family residential lots, which encompasses about 8.2 acres of this property, 11 common lots and, then, another future -- future lot that is just under eight acres. We do have almost 30 percent of qualified open space here and this is the location there of that multi-sport court. Bill also mentioned that we basically are mirroring the other side. On that other side they will have access to a gazebo and a little barbecue area, so we felt a sports thing over on this side kind of benefits both of them, kind of brings a little bit of variety there. So, this is that multi-court sports arena. You can do pickleball, tennis, soccer and some other things there, just to give variety and give options to the residents. Several sidewalks will be proposed with this development. We are very proud of how this is developing out there with lots of pedestrian accessibility and this is just another addition to that. These will be our Carriage Lane product, both paired and single family detached. Again Bill mentioned it for us, but this is kind of mirroring that other product on the other side. So, it's just a continuation. I think it's going to flow really nicely there. Everything's going to F56] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 54 of 55 be facing outward. So, you will see these frontages on all of those main roadways. It is in the medium high density future land use map area. We are not asking for a modification of the FLUM, nor are we asking for a modification of zoning, as it's already zoned R-15, and as Bill mentioned we do concur with the staff recommendation for approval. I will stand for any questions. Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? McNutt: Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone who would wish to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. No one has signed up. Lorcher: Amanda, you good? Any other comments? All right. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Smith: So moved. Seal: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Apex. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: Any comments, Commissioners? It just seems to be another phase of their project that they are doing. It's well laid out, especially if they can mirror later other amenities that would benefit the -- the homeowners. Rust: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Rust. Rust: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. H-2024-0041 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 7th, 2024. Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to recommend File No. 0041 to City Council. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: And I will take one more. 57 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 7,2024 Page 55 of 55 Seal: Madam Chair -- Lorcher: A second? Do I have a second? Seal: I move -- I move we adjourn. Lorcher: Oh. Okay. There it is. I'm already ahead of myself. It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:09 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F58] E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the October 17, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 4 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 44 of 44 Smith: Move to adjourn. Seal: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:19 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 11 I 7 12024 MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F48 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for McDonalds at Firenze Plaza, by Kimley Horn, located at 3058 Amity Rd. F49 CITY OF MERIDIAN V IDIAN;--- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ! DAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for a Conditional Use Permit for McDonalds at Firenze Plaza,Located at 3058 E.Amity Road in the C-C Zoning District,by Kimley Horn. Case No(s).H-2024-0044 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: October 17r'',2024 (Findings on November 7',2024) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 17t'', 2024, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 17t'', 2024, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 17', 2024, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 7',2024, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65, Title 67,Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 1 I Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § I I-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2024-0044 Page 1 Fol 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of October 17',2024, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning &Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 1I- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of October 17`h, 2024, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-513-617.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Judicial Review Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521(1)(d),if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho Code § 67-6521(1)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this final decision may,within twenty-eight (28)days after all remedies have been exhausted, including requesting reconsideration of this final decision as provided by Meridian City Code § 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as provided by chapter 52,title 67, Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of Meridian does not admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA. F. Notice of Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-6521(1)(d) and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the subject of a final decision may submit a written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory takings analysis. G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of October 17", 2024 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2024-0044 Page 2 F51 7th By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of November ,2024. COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER JARED SMITH,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER BRIAN GARRETT VOTED COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL VOTED COMMISSIONER PATRICK GRACE VOTED COMMISSIONER MATTHEW SANDOVAL VOTED COMMISSIONER SAM RUST VOTED Maria Lorcher, Chairman 11-7-2024 Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 11-7-2024 Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: 11-7-2024 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2024-0044 Page 3 52 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,­, DEPARTMENT REPORT IDAHO HEARING 10/17/2024 ' Legend ,.. DATE: Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission .-= Area of Impact }= City Limits FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner O Analysis 208-884-5533 nnapoli@meridiancity.org "r9IM.F., . RN APPLICANT: Connor Candrian �® r SUBJECT: H-2024-0044 "'- McDonalds at Firenze Plaza Y _ LOCATION: Located at 3058 E.Amity Road, in the North '/z of Section 3, T.1N,R.29E. (Parcel#R2833250020) VE: PROJECT OVERVIEW Summary Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a 4,507 square foot restaurant with accessory drive-through in the C-C zoning district,by Kimley Horn. Note: A restaurant is a permitted use. The conditional use permit is required because the prosed drive-through is within 300 feet of another drive-through. Issues/Waivers This application has received a significant amount of public testimony in opposition of the project. Recommendation Staff. Approval with Conditions Decision Commission: Approved CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2024-0044 Page 4 53 COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Land - Proposed Land Use(s) Restaurant w/drive-through - Existing/Proposed Zoning C-C - Future Land Use Designation Mixed-use Community(MU-C) - Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 4/30/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 8/8/2024 Site posting date 10/5/2024 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency Element Description Issue Reference Ada County Highway District - Comments Received Yes - Commission Action Required No - Access Private Drive Aisle via S.Cubola Ave(Local Street) - ITD Comments Received No Meridian Public Works Wastewater Distance to Mainline Available at site Impacts or Concerns No Meridian Public Works Water Distance to Mainline Available at site Impacts or Concerns No Note: See section 0. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS& CONDITIONS for comments received or see the public record: (Public record link). CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2024-0044 Page 5 54 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) General Overview This property is designated as Mixed-use Community(MU-C) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The use of a drive through restaurant is consistent with the comprehensive plan for the MU-C designation. The subject site is among several commercially zoned properties surrounding the intersection of S. Eagle Road and E.Amity Road. The proposed use of a restaurant with a drive-through aligns with the desired uses specified within the Mixed-use Community designation in the Comprehensive Plan, as noted above. In conjunction with the already approved development directly to the north and west,the proposed use satisfies the general Mixed-Use Community future land use designation for this area. In 2016,the development agreement approved with the annexation of the property showed a drive through on this site. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History AZ,CPAM,PP(H-2016-0102);DA Instr.#2017-041827;FP(2019- 0067);ALT(A-2022-0086) Physical Features Tenmile Feeder Canal Acreage 0.98 of an acre Site Development and Use Analysis Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed use of a restaurant and drive-through establishment aligns well with the Mixed- Use Community(MU-C)future land use designation,which supports a blend of residential, commercial,and recreational uses. By offering service options within proximity to both residential areas and existing commercial developments,this project contributes to the community's overall livability and sustainability. Specifically, it adheres to Policy 3.06.02B, which encourages and supports mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of living, shopping, dining, and working nearby,thereby reducing vehicle trips. Additionally,the proposal is consistent with Policy 3.07.02B,which recommends locating smaller-scale,neighborhood- serving commercial uses in clusters that complement and provide convenient access to nearby residential areas,while minimizing direct access to major roadways. The establishment's location adjacent to E. Amity Road within the Firenze Plaza Subdivision enhances its accessibility and supports the local commercial landscape, fulfilling the need for such amenities in the immediate and broader community. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Development of the site hall comply with the dimensional standards of the C-C zoning district in UDC Table 11-2B-3.Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and building elevations and they comply with the required standards. The proposed hours of operation are S:00 am to 12:00 am which is in compliance with the C-C zoning district. Since the property does not directly abut a residential district(intersected by S. Cubola Ave) the hours are not restricted. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): Drive-Through Establishment UDC 11-4-3-11 and Restaurant UDC 11-4-3-49: CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2024-0044 ■ Page 6 The proposed drive-through establishment is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11,Drive-Through Establishment. All establishments providing drive-through service are required to identify the stacking lane,menu,and speaker location(if applicable), and window location on the site plan. The site plan is also required to demonstrate safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties. At a minimum,the plan is required to demonstrate compliance with the following standards: Staff recommends signage be installed ahead of the eastern crossing warning drivers to watch out for pedestrians. 1) Stacking lanes have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways, drive aisles, and the public right-of-way by patrons; The proposed restaurant features two drive-through lanes that merge into one with space to queue a total of 16 vehicles along with an escape lane located on the south side of the site, outside of the drive-through lane. The drive-through itself starts at the west side of the building and exits at the east side. The concept plan also shows that the stacking lane is separate from the drive aisles and parking, which allows for easy access to the rest of the development. Staff recommends that the Applicant install additional signage and parking lot striping to clearly mark and guide traffic safely throughout the site. Staff has some concerns about peak hour stacking as it may back out into the private drive aisle during hours that may impact neighboring businesses. However, Staff has worked with the applicant to look at data from McDonald's drive-throughs during peak hours and it has alleviated some of staff concerns. The applicant provided data discussing peak hour traffic for a McDonalds in Meridian as well as explaining that 100 feet between the order kiosk and pick up window is the most efficient layout for McDonalds. If needed, McDonalds will direct patrons to park in parking stalls to prevent stacking from extending beyond the means of their site. 2) The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking, except stacking lanes may provide access to designated employee parking. The stacking lanes are separate lanes from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking. However, the applicant is proposing to use the escape lane as a one-way drive aisle for egress from the site. While this is not the intent of the escape lane, staff finds it to be adequate for site circulation. 3) The stacking lane shall not be located within ten(10) feet of any residential district or existing residence; The stacking lane is not located within 10'of any residential district or residence. 4)Any stacking lane greater than one hundred(100) feet in length shall provide for an escape lane; and The stacking lane exceeds 100'in length and an escape lane is required. An escape lane is proposed on the south side of the building(see site plan). However, the applicant is proposing to use the escape lane as a one-way drive aisle for egress from the site. While this is not the intent of the escape lane, stafffinds it to be adequate for site circulation. 5) The site should be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street for surveillance purposes. The drive-through is located starting on the west side of the building and ending on the east side of the building. The drive-through is visible from E.Amity Road along the south side of the building for surveillance purposes. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2024-0044 ■ Page 7 Based on the above analysis, Staff deems the proposed drive-through complies with the specific use standards as required. Restaurant: The proposed use is also subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11- 4-3-49 Restaurant,which requires at a minimum, one(1)parking space to be provided for every 250 square feet of gross floor area(see parking analysis below). The applicant is proposing 21 parking stalls exceeding the 18 that are required. Design Standards Analysis Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Landscape buffers along streets A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along E. Amity Road and a 10-foot wide street buffer is required along S. Cubola Avenue, an arterial and a local road. These buffers shall be landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-7C. The proposed landscaping was installed with the final plat for Firenze Plaza. The combination of the existing and proposed landscaping exceeds the minimum requirements. Parking lot landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all parking areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8. The proposed landscape plan does not meet the minimum requirements. The landscape plan should be revised to include a tree in every planter island, if this is not feasible due to utility easements, alternative compliance shall be applied for with the certificate of zoning compliance submittal.Additionally, the pathway along the east portion of the building extending north shall be landscaped 3 feet on the west side and 5 feet of the east side. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses Landscaping is required to meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-9. The landscape plan meets the minimum requirements. Storm integration Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. Drainage swales should not be within the landscape setbacks along E.Amity Road. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Nonresidential parking analysis A minimum of one(1) off-street parking space is required per 250 square feet(s.£)of gross floor area. Based on the 4,507-square-foot restaurant, a minimum of 18 parking spaces are required.A total of 21 parking spaces are proposed, exceeding UDC standards. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space must be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C.Bicycle parking is depicted on the plans submitted with this application that meet the requirements. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2024-0044 Page 8 57 Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Goal 2.09.03A of the Comprehensive Plan highlights establishing distinct, engaging identities within commercial and mixed-use enters through design standards to integrate commercial, multifamily,and parking areas with existing neighborhoods. In response,the developer has submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed structure as shown in Section VII.C. Building materials consist of EIFS stucco, standing seam metal panels,wood paneling, and glazing. Staff recommends the incorporation of additional fenestration, banding, or glazing on the South fagade as this is the primary facade that is visible from E. Amity Road. The architectural standards require an average of 40%fenestration on applicable facades in Mixed-Use Areas.Additionally, staff recommends the use of materials (brick, stone wainscot, etc)from the surrounding development as required in the development agreement. The proposed conceptual elevations are not approved. The final design is required to comply with the Architectural Standards Manual for Commercial Design Guidelines and shall integrate with the surrounding development. Transportation Analysis Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Goal 6.01.0213 emphasizes reducing the number of access points onto arterial streets by utilizing strategies such as cross-access agreements, access management, and the creation of frontage and backage roads,while also improving connectivity between local and collector streets. The site plan features two access points via a private drive aisle located on the northern part of the site(backage road). This drive aisle connects to E. Cubola Avenue(a local street) on the western side of the property. Vehicles will enter from the north,with options to either park in the lot north or west of the building or continue south to the 12-foot drive-through lane and pick-up window, exiting back onto the northern drive aisle. An escape lane on the south side merges into the exit drive aisle to the east. Direct access from E. Amity Road is not permitted. The Applicant is required to submit a copy of the recorded cross- access/ingress-egress easement for the adjacent property to the east(parcel#R2833250040) to the Planning Division along with the future CZC and Design Review Application, in accordance with UDC 11-3A-3A2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): An existing multi-use pathway exist along E.Amity Road, this shall be preserved and protected during construction. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): The proposed plan includes a pedestrian walkway from the main walkway on the east side of the building connecting to the store front across the drive-through lanes. Where pedestrian walkways cross vehicular driving surfaces,they're required to be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete,or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. The site/landscape plan shall be revised to reflect compliance with this standard. The connection through the drive aisle shall be delineated from the driving surface through pavers, colored or scored concrete. Services Analysis Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): The Ten-mile Feeder Canal has been piped and runs along the southern boundary of the site. No additional improvements are required with this application. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2024-0044 Page 9 [58] Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-15. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. Drainage swales shall not be within the street landscape buffer along E. Amity Road. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Both the Plan and the UDC establish policy and regulations for extending and connecting to City utilities. Goal 3.03.03G of the Plan mandates urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments,including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities.All utilities for the proposed development are required to be installed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-21. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS& CONDITIONS Meridian Planning Division 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the previous conditions of approval and terms of AZ, CPAM,PP(H-2016-0102); DA Instr. #2017-041827; FP(2019-0067);ALT(A- 2022-0086); and the conditions contained herein. 2. The site plan and/or landscape plan, as applicable, shall be revised with the certificate of zoning compliance application as follows: Provide a tree in the planter island to the east of the trash enclosure or apply for alternative compliance with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance and design review. Provide 3 feet of landscaping on the west side and 5 feet on the east side of the pathway on the east side of the building to match the landscaping within the development. Pave the drive aisle to the east that the escape lane exits onto that is owned by Albertsons (Parcel #R2833250040). Delineate the pedestrian connection through the drive aisle with the use of pavers or stamped and colored concrete. No stacking is allowed in the outside travel lane that serves as an escape lane; depict signage notifying patrons not to block the escape lane. Signage shall be installed ahead of the eastern crossing warning drivers to watch out for pedestrians. 3. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49 and 11-4-3-11 is required. 4. The building elevations shall be revised to incorporate additional fenestration,banding,or glazing on the South fagade to meet the 40%fenestration requirement in the architectural standards manual. Additionally,the use of materials(brick, stone wainscot,etc.)from the surrounding development shall be incorporated into the design to provide consistency with the surrounding buildings. 5. Preserve and protect the existing landscaping on the south and west buffers of the site during construction,per UDC 11-3B-10. 6. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2024-0044 Page10 F591 of the site and structure shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19;the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and with the Development Agreement. 7. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6. A time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-513-6F. Meridian Public Works PPX-PLAT CONDITIONS Wastewater ■ Distance to Sewer Sewer Available at site Services + Sewer Shed + Estimated Project Sea application Sewer ERLI's + WRRF Dedining Balance ■ Prajjec#Consistent Yes with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/ooncems • + See Public WDrks Site Specifir€ondfferts Water • Distance to Water Water Available at Site Services ■ Pressure Zone + Estimated Project See appliCatian Water ERU's • Water Quality None * Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan + Impacts/ aneems None- NON-PLAT CONDI T1 ONS PUBLIC WORKSDY2AR[h EM' Site Spcxifie{;Dsditiuos ur AMrm d I_ CarNrt_s aim]ollser permanent Structurce.grmi buelhceti buildings,trash rcocC mic ttWK fences,indiltration trenchv.,light pales,etc_)cannot be built within the utility Easement- 2- Ensure MI Sewer services CM&A ildiltrdtiou(rk:uLIles Sewer'service lilies through uudorground s;ra^Me be&or swabs are not allowed wllms appmvod by the City r1)Vjneer_ 3_ Wmer ser iom require a 20'casement up to and l{Y beyond the mcler Dr acs dame In I tr as powihle. 4_ Rcmnve a portion of water stub sn drere is nn nxwe than S`past the water servicc csmmlian.tip dead end of stub. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2024-0044 Page I I 60 General f:undidons of AppruMal I_ Applicant shall uxardinate water and sewer main siyr and routing with the Puhlic Woai�s Department_ 2. Per Meridian City Co&(l E)U),the ap0"nt shall be respnnsib-Jc to instal I sewer and water mains to and through this developmmL Appliraml may be eligible Fora reimbursement alTx-ment for infrastrwturc cnheneemtmt per MCC 8-r5_ 3_ The applicant shall provide casements)for all public waterlsew-cr naive outside of public Tight of way(include all water services and hydrams� Sowurlwatosca_sement varies dependingom sewer depth.Scwa 0-20 fl do W require a.30 fl tascnxm,20-25 El a 40 11 t:asetrarn,and 25-30 ft a 45 fl ca-sement_ kmure no permanent structure;(faces,hushes,buildings,carports,trash rcreplacle walls,fenrn,infiltration trenches,light Mlm,etc_)arc built within the utility easentmt. Submit an executed ew ment(on the farm available from Public Works),a legaJ desc-riptiam prepared by an Idaho-I.io-. .vA Profissicmal land Surveyor,which must include the area ofthe caner t (marked k!XIIIIJEI'A)and an 8112"x l 1"map with bewingi anddistanaex(rr®rked EXIJIHIT 11) for review.Both exhibits must be sealed,signed and dated by a PmCcsi ianal land Suricyor.DO NUF KI;J[URi]_ 4_ The City of Meridian requires that prcisurvcd irrigation ipstcrrrs be supplied by aycar-round source ofwaux(I]IX; I 1-311-ty The applicant should be required to use any existing surfaceor well water for the primary source. if a surFat3e or wet l soaves is not avai table,a sirrglc-plaint connection to the cuJirary water system shall be required. [f a single-point eonnecben is ulili=dd the developer will be responsible for the payment oFassmsmumts For the common areas prior to prior to receiving dcvclapment plan approval- 5- Any structures that am allowoad to remain shall be subject to evaluation and pae;sibJc namignuwnt ofshmn addressing to be in c�xnpliam:c with MCC:. 6_ All irrigation ditches,canals,latcra.Is,or drains,cxcJu_vive of natural waterways intersecting, crossing orJayingadjaccnt and comtigpoas to the area being subdivided shaJ he addra sed per UIX,' I 1-3A-i_ In perfuming such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicabJe law cw regulation_ 7. Any wel Is that will nor am inue to he used must lx:prsaperly+abandoned accor-ding to Idaho Well Constructinn Standards Vales administered by Ilse ldahn l)gmtment of Watcr Resources. The VereeJoper's hn&ca shaJ I provide a statcme nt addre:Qsing whcilmr tltero are any cxi_iling walls in the development,and if so,how they wi1J amtinuc ua be used,u-provide rend of their abandonment. M_ Any existing septic-systems within this p"c*A%hal I be removed from icnicu per o ty{lydimume ti.wtio n 9-1-4 and 9 4 M. {_ontact C mtral District I lealth for abandcmm mt prxautxJures and imspeclioms(208)375-5211_ 9- All improvement9 relgicd to public life,safety and health shal l be wmp]eted prior to occupancy aF the structures_ to. Applicant shall be rcquiredw pay Public Works development plan review,and c4mwtruv6 n inspection foo-s,as detcrmincdduring theplan mview pnxcass,prior to the iL;uance oFa plan approval letter- 1. It shall he the respnnsibility nfthe applicant ua unsure drat all development fcatur comply with the AnwTicans with Disabilities Act and the Fair I Iou_sing Ael 12. Applicmt shall be ruspoHmible for application and vafnoiancc with any Swtiom 4114 Fcra6tting that may be required by the Army Corps of EriAincers_ 13. Develraper shal l coordinate mai I box loratinas with doe Meridian Post oMice_ 14. {;ompactinn trot results shall be suhrr fitted to the Meridians Building Dgamtrnent far aJ I building pads rmciving tmlrineercd hackfill,when Foaling would sit atop fill material. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2024-0044 Page 12 61 5. The design cngmcer shall be required to certify that the stm n centerline clevarions arc tics a minimum of 3-fe€t above the highest established peak groundwater atcvation. This is tocnsum that the bottom elevation of the emwl spmccs of homers is at lentil 1-foal above_ I6. The applicants design cu onoLr shall be regransible for mspcc6on of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project dw do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigatian district or A(,1Ill_The d it r engineer shall pmvielc certification that the facilities have been mstallod in ancordancc,with the appfnNrd de_tiiyu plans_This certiGcatian will be required before accrtificate ofotccupanry iti issued for any structuras vrithin the project- 17. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be rcaponsiblc to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian Auto(Al)standards_ These record drawingi must be received and approved prior to the issuance of aorriification ofoccupancy for any structures within thepmjcet_ 19. A streca light plan will need to he includrd in the civil mnstruc6yn plans.Street light plan re quire menu arc listed in section 6-5 ofthe Improvement Standards for~trout Lightiny,A copy of the.Aand r..can be found at hup:fwww.mcndtanctly.orglpublic woui6:s.aspx?id-272_ 19. The City of Meridian requincs that the owner post to the City a W.ormance surety in the amamt of 125%of the total construction c"i forr all iucon pletc sewer,walcr and remtsc infrastruetmur prior to final plat signature.This surety will be verified by a line item vmt astimatc pmnvidcd by the owner to the City_The surely can be pw.-Add in the Form afan irm-w ahle letter of cmodiL o'ash deposit orbond.Applicant mast file an application forsurety,which can he Foundon the Ccvnmmmity Devclopmnent Dopartm i mlwcbsitc_ Please contact lAnd I)evcl gmrb ml Service for moor inforniabon al 8ii7-2211. 20. The City of Meridian requires that the owner petit to the Cily a warranty surety in the amount of AM of the Loral mastrwction cost for a.11 completed sewer,water and reatic in Frastmucture Far duration of two year_~_This surety veill he verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner l41 the City—Tyre surety ran be parsled in the farm of an irrevocable laterofcredit,cash deposit or bond.Applicant mmtsl file an application for surety,which can he found on the Community Development Llcpartmrnlwcbcitc. Please comtacl land I)evi:kFpFncnl tiemvice far more infommalion at M7-2211. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2024-0044 Page 13 62 Ada County Highway District(ACHD) uiranVa Cio10,%9G*-Pro2@rt ACHD Iirt5 F18rlilYti 416mrt5ee1oYrrr ISent Cokh Nor Cbmlr�ov�r / Doe McKinrlq%COmnS�lo r 7 September 3, 2024 To-. Connor Candrian,via email Kimley-Horn 1100 W. Idaho Street,Suite 210 Boise, ID 83702 Subject MER24-DO891 H-2024-0044 3058 E.Amity Road McDonald's located within Firenze Plaza The Ada County Highway district (ACHD) has reviewed the submitted application for tl}e application referenced above and has determined that there are no improvements required to the adjacent swBet(s). The applicant shall be requlred to: 1. Ray a traffic impact fee,if applicable. Far any questions regarding the traffic impact fee please contact AGHD's Impact Fes Administrator at impaotrees@achdidaho-orq- 2. If applicable,a traffic impacl fee shall be assessed by ACHD and wIll be due prior to Use issuance of a building permit by the lead agency. This is a separate review process, and it is the applicant's responsibility to submit plans directly to ACHD. 3. Payment can be accepted aver the phone by calling (208)387-6170 or can be sent!delivered to-the following address: Ada County Highway District Atln, Development Servioas 1301 N Orchard St,Suite 200 Solse, ID 837-06 0 Reference the file number above when making the paymerYt- ■ Please note: o Fees are subject to change if not paid prior to October 1" o All card payments are subject to a 3%processing fee o All a-check payments are subject to a$1.50 processing fee 4. Submit a driveway approach request for any proposed driveways. Driveway approach permits can be found at, http5:l1www.a chdl da ho.orfVhome+showpu bl isheddocu menO8M38245965711600000 5. Comply with all ACHD Poli0eo,and ACHD Standard Conditions of Approval for any improvements or work in the right-of-way. 6. Obtain a permit for any work in the right-of-way prior to the construction,repair,or installation of any roadway improvements(curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement widening,driveways,culverts,etc-)- CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2024-0044 Page 14 63 Standard CondiMena of Approval 1, All proposed irrigation faciiities shall be located outside of the ACHD right-of-way (Including all easements). Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the ACHD right-af-way (including all easements). 2, Private U61itles including sewer or water systems are prohibited (turn being located wlthlo the ACHD right-of-way. 3. In accordance with district policy, M3.3,the applicant may be required to update any existing norwGomplient pedestrian improvements abutting the site to meet current Public Right-of-way Acoessibilily Guidelines (PROWAG) requirements, Ike-a11p iicanl's engineer should provide documentation of oormliance to District Development Review staff for review. 4. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 208-387-6280 (with file nurnber)for details, S. A license agreement and compliance with the District's Tree Planter policy is required for all landscaping proposed within ACHD right-of-way or easement areas- 6. All utility relocation casts associated with Improving street fronlages abutting the site shall be bome by the developer- 7. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way- The applicant at no c❑sl to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged bylhe applicant- The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-811-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way, The applicant shalt contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits(spare or filled)are compromised during any phase of construction. a. Utility street outs in pavement less than Five yeara old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utlllty Coordinator at 208-387-6258(Mlh flie numbers) for details. 9. All design and construction shall be in accordance with 1he ACHD Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Standards unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered In the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 10- Construction, use and property development shall bs in conformance with all applicable requirements of ACHD prior to District approval for occupancy- 11. tdo change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of ACHIJ. The burden shall be upon the applica nt to obtain written confirmation of any change from ACHD. 12. If the site plan or use should ohange in the future,ACHD Planning Review will review the site plan and may require additional improvemerrts to the transportation system at that time. Any change in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with ACHD Policy and Standard Cpnftons of Approval in place at dial time unless a walve6variance of the requirements or other legal relief is granted ty the ACHD Commission. FINDINGS Conditional Use(UDC 11-513-6E) The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meets all dimensional and development regulations of the recommended C-C zoning district. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2024-0044 Page 15 64 That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. The Commission finds the proposed restaurant and drive through use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section IV of this report. That the design, construction, operation, and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section IV of this report. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal,water, and sewer. The Commission finds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The Commission finds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: This finding is not applicable. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2024-0044 Page 16 65 IV. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP application and finds it in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan,UDC with the conditions included in Section IV. and Findings in V. Commission: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on October 17', 2024. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to approve the subject Conditional Use Permit request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Connor Candrian,Aaron Zuzack.Andriene Nelson,Julie Kissler b. In opposition. Kelly Elliot and Samantha Hall c. Commenting: Kelly Elliot, Samantha Hall.Andriene Nelson,Julie Kissler d. Written testimony: Raine Arimitsu, Stacy Berenger,Kevin Bradt,Kelly,Marina, Crystal Deelstra,Amyjoy Price, J.Cole,Jame Worley,Kelly Lemmons,Kyle Hal,K. Elliot Samantha Allen, Carlie Stweart. Christina Gervais,Jill Russell, Trina Havicek_Glen Grant,Jennifer Frendt,Phillip Hurst.Lance and Linda Lamprecht,Richard Jones, Samantha Hall. and Elliot Dawson e. Staff presenting application:Nick Napoli f. Other Staff commenting on application: Kurt Starman 2. Kev issue(s)of public testimony: a. Traffic/congestion, smell from the restaurant, decreasing property values,and neighborhood health. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Traffic and cQnggstion 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2024-0044 Page 17 66 EXHIBITS Project Area Maps (link to ProjectOverview) Aerial Legend Project LocationArea • Impact y 0 Analysis F CITY OF OF • • OF • ORDER CASE • H-2024-0044 Zoning Map Legend ® n ���� ,� R 8 R-1 B O Project Location R-15 FR Area of Impact - O Analysis RUT RUT FE R 8 t R-4 RSW CIIn - RUT - i R-15 C-N R-8 R1 r.. R-4 �R 2 � R4 Future Land Use Legend79w NO4� 4�qk Project Location � T Area of Impact O Analysis J.LLLLJ CiYic c Low Density FFFR r Residential Medium Density Residential � ® FL t ® F go MU-C f U M. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2024-0044 Page19 68 Planned Development Map Legend Project Location Area of Impact T=' City Limits Planned Parcels O Analysis EB d ®® , MITI! 977 F�MITI! PTF[q - --- - - M Ll NMI I -� CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2024-0044 Page 20 69 Subject Site Photos NEWEL -1'tiY CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2024-0044 Page 21 70 Service Accessibility Report overall Sure: 35 64th Percentile Location Gtf L nit=_ KEEN Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplain or > 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 miin. GREEN Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current Pathways GREEN Transit Not within 1/4 of current or future transit route aE� Arterial Road Buildouit Status Ultimate configuration of lanes in master streets plan) matches existing #of lanes) School Walking Proximity From 1/2 to 1 mile walking YELLOW Either a H igh School or College within 2 miles OR a School Drivability Middle or Elementary Schaal within 1 mile driving r.E.MN (existing or future) Either a Regional Park within 1 mile OR a-Cornmunity Park Walkability Park within 1/2 mile OR a Neighborhood Park within GREEN 1/4 mile walking CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2024-0044 Page 22 71 Site Plan (date: 7/15/2024) NIH—A—N d.�ffl Fir 1 F1 F 21, o IiE ors CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2024-0044 Page 23 F 72 Landscape Plan(date: 8/19/2024) -Lil I III IT o- - --- 0 m a ta aEla ML i7m, F CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2024-0044 Page 24 73 Building Elevations(date: 6/28/2024) I � I � o L 1 p W 4j;' o e ¢ S �IJr1 �• Ej ! .i 9 ■ � ;�-''� ��.-�,, -Lam.....a:x:s ii �I f �'.,•!e'� � - III 4_ CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2024-0044 Page 25 74 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Touchmark Office Building A, by Conger Group, located at 3526 E. Louise Dr. F75 CITY OF MERIDIAN V IDIAN;--- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ! DAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permits for Touchmark Office Buildings A&B, Located at 3512 and 3526 E.Louise Drive in the L-O Zoning District,by Conger Group. Case No(s).H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: October 17t'',2024 (Findings on November 7t",2024) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 17t'', 2024, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 17t'', 2024, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 17', 2024, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 7',2024, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65, Title 67,Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 1 F76 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of October 17',2024, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning &Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 1I- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for Conditional Use Permits is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of October 17`h, 2024, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-513-617.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Judicial Review Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521(1)(d),if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho Code § 67-6521(1)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this final decision may,within twenty-eight (28)days after all remedies have been exhausted, including requesting reconsideration of this final decision as provided by Meridian City Code § 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as provided by chapter 52,title 67, Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of Meridian does not admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA. F. Notice of Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-6521(1)(d) and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the subject of a final decision may submit a written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory takings analysis. G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of October 17", 2024. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 2 F77 By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 7th day of November ,2024. COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER JARED SMITH,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER BRIAN GARRETT VOTED COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL VOTED COMMISSIONER PATRICK GRACE VOTED COMMISSIONER MATTHEW SANDOVAL VOTED COMMISSIONER SAM RUST VOTED Maria Lorcher, Chairman 11-7-2024 Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 11-7-2024 Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: 11-7-2024 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 3 F78 Exhibit A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,- DEPARTMENT REPORT I DA H O HEARING 10/17/2024 Legend DATE: Project location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Area of impact �r I �= City LimitsF_- FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner O Analysis 208-884-5533 nnapoli@meridiancity.org ■ APPLICANT: Marcel Lopez T j o SUBJECT: H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046 + j Touchmark Office Buildings A&B LOCATION: Located at 3512 E. Louise Drive and -zJ f 7�- 3526 E. Louise Drive in the north '/4 of Section 16,T.3N.,RJE. (R8509140100 l—777 - and R8509140090) ==yam / ' % ? I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary The applicant requests a conditional use permit to construct and operate two office buildings (4,760 square feet and 4,534 square feet) on 1.2 acres in the L-O zoning,by Conger Group. B. Recommendation Staff: Approval with conditions. C. Decision Commission: Approved CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 4 F79 II. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant - Proposed Land Use(s) Office - Existing/Proposed Zoning L-O V.A.2 Future Land Use Designation MU-C(Mixed Use Community) V.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 8/6/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 8/21/2024 Site posting date 10/4/2024 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access Private Drive Aisle - ITD Comments Received No - Meridian Public Works Wastewater III.B • Distance to Mainline Available at site • Impacts or Concerns No Meridian Public Works Water III.B • Distance to Mainline Available at site • Impacts or Concerns No Note: See section III. City/Agency Comments & Conditions for comments received or see the public record: (https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLink/Browse.aWx?id=362259&dbid=0&repo=Meridian C Lty)- CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 5 F80 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview This property is designated as Mixed-Use Community(MU-C)on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The proposed use for office buildings is consistent with prior approvals and the comprehensive plan for the MU-C designation. The subject sites are among several commercially zoned properties surrounding the corner of S. Touchmark Way and E. Franklin Road. The proposed office buildings align with the desired uses specified within the Mixed-Use Community designation. In conjunction with the existing office buildings,proposed future residential, and existing residential the proposed use satisfies the mix of uses desired in the MU-C designation. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History AZ-05-022; PP-05-054;CUP-05-050 Acreage 1.2 acres B. History and Process The subject property was annexed in May 2001 (Ordinance No. 01.917) and approved a conditional use permit(CUP-05-050)for the applicant to develop the property into a mixed-use retirement community consisting of residential dwellings,medical offices,commercial/retail businesses, and a senior community center. The CUP requires all lots within the scope of the permit to receive detailed CUP approval prior to developing the property. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed use of office buildings aligns well with the Mixed-Use Neighborhood(MU-C) future land use designation,which supports a blend of residential, commercial,and recreational uses. Office buildings are typically principally permitted in the L-O zoning, however, due to a provision in the CUP from 2005, all properties require a detailed CUP approval. By offering service options within proximity to both residential areas and existing commercial developments,this project contributes to the community's overall livability and sustainability. Specifically, it adheres to Policy 3.06.02B,which encourages and supports mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of living, shopping, dining, and working nearby, thereby reducing vehicle trips. To align with the current development, staff recommends that the applicant enhance landscaping between the buildings and along the eastern buffer. Goal 2.09.02E of the comprehensive plan emphasizes the importance of consistent landscaping standards for developments. Therefore, staff is advising that these improvements be included with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review submission. 2. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Development of the site hall comply with the dimensional standards of the L-O zoning district in UDC Table 11-2B-3.Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and building elevations and they comply with the required standards. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] ■ Page 6 D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Parking lot landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all parking areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8. The proposed landscape plan shall be revised to include a tree in the planter island to the west of the trash enclosure on the northern property the minimum requirements. ii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses Landscaping is required to meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-9. The landscape plan meets the minimum requirements. iii. Storm integration Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. 2. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Nonresidential parking analysis A minimum of one(1) off street parking space is required per 500 square feet of gross floor area. Based on the buildings ranging between 4,534 and 4,760 square feet, 19 parking stalls are required between the two(2) sites.A total of 37 parking stalls are provided exceeding the required parking. ii. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space must be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C.Bicycle parking is depicted on the plans submitted with this application that meet the requirements. 3. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Goal 2.09.03A of the Comprehensive Plan highlights establishing distinct, engaging identities within commercial and mixed-use enters through design standards to integrate commercial, multifamily,and parking areas with existing neighborhoods. In response,the developer has submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed structure as shown in Section VII.C. Building materials consist of EIFS stucco, craft chop ledge panels, standing seam metal panels, steel canopies, and glazing. The proposed conceptual elevations are approved. The final design is required to comply with the Architectural Standards Manual for Commercial Design Guidelines. E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Goal 6.01.02B emphasizes reducing the number of access points onto arterial streets by utilizing strategies such as cross-access agreements, access management, and the creation of frontage and backage roads,while also improving connectivity between local and collector streets. The site plan features a single access point via a private drive aisle located on the western part of the site. This private drive aisle connects to S. Touchmark Way and E. Louise Drive(collector streets). Staff has concerns with the location of the trash enclosure,however,Republic Services has approved these locations. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 7 F82 2. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): The proposed plan includes a pedestrian walkway from the main sidewalk on the north side of the buildings connecting to the front of each building. Pedestrians do not need to cross driving surfaces to connect with these building so delineation from the drive aisle is not required. The site/landscape plan submitted both reflect compliance with this standard. F. Services Analysis 1. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-15. 2. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. 3. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Both the Plan and the UDC establish policy and regulations for extending and connecting to City utilities. Goal 3.03.03G of the Plan mandates urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments,including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities. All utilities for the proposed development are required to be installed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-21. III. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the previous conditions of approval and terms of AZ-05-022; PP-05-054; CUP-05-050; and FP-06-012 and the conditions contained herein. 2. The site plan and/or landscape plan, as applicable, shall be revised with the certificate of zoning compliance application as follows: The eastei%!a-adseape buffer-and area between the buildings shall be revised - A tree shall be depicted in the planter island to the west of the trash enclosure on the northern property. 3. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design of the site and structure shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19;the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and with the Development Agreement. 4. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6. A time extension may be requested asset forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 8 F83 B. Meridian Public Works PRE-PLA'f COND1'11ONS wastewater + Dkstancetn; tiwer SewerAvailable atsibe Services Sewer shed a kstimated Project see application Sewer ERU'S • WRRI Ueclinmg Balance • ProfectCansiste•nt Yes with W4Y Master FlaOF aclifty Plan • Impa Lt5�e8r1cerns • + See Public Wofks Site Specific Conditions Water Ekganoetowater waterhvaklahleatsite Services • Pre551ffe LUrre + Estimated Project see application WaterkRu's • WaltertLuakty None • Flopct Can515te nt yes with Water Master Plan ImpaotS/Cencerns Nave-Please see Public warksstte specific C:ondrtions NON-P LAY CON lll'IlONS hPt.mm:444mL3DrPARTmi--r Site Spc lfie Candllions of Approval I. Thae is an existing Aub bmated at the SW corner ofthc wile-Wake nx-tcr FKcd'.to connect within T front end ofAulk Callout mmoy l of the Rlnw-off.Water nx ery need to be located ins 1mdmap1og area 2. W aier services rcqui rc a 21Y oa crnent up to the waicr meter.The city regL"that the cs cincnt extrnd;IQ'past the water mderbut nnly S'lq fcyujrcd. 3. Single stnrxtuc multi-tiuml unit,that am for renal nnly should have a-ingt City nxiw.Ifthe unity wil I he cwmcd individually,dKn cash mee&a wwix meter. 4. CagwwL,and rAhm penmanem suimb rq(trees,hwhcs,buildings,trash rouygae]c ualLz,fend, infiltration trendies light pales,ram}i-,anntx Ix built within the utility Fa cmcm 5- .Ensure nn Rcwcrsmicert erem infiltratirrfitrenehes.Rcwersctviec Ijnc.q tJ:m)ugh underground wqWhe hcxi'.in-'.Value aM rxii aillawtxi WdMi Uppmved by dw Cicy 1kLginccr- 6. Water scrvioeei requite a 21Y c ienwO up to and li7'beyond the meta%ar as cJck;c to 16'aw perm-ble- CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 9 F84 C;raeral Condition!;of approval 1. Applicaut shall ecKxdiaatewatcr aad wewer ina.in size and mutiag with the Public Wc' rkw DeparuncnL 2. Pcr Meridian CLty Code(MCC'),the applicant shall be relwwsiNe io k"I wewer and wake mains to and through thL;devcLopnwmL Applicant may he cLigible for a reimtwrsnrou agreement forinfrairmfim enhanmment per MCC 9-&5. 3. The applicant gall provide cascmcnt(s)for all public watalacwar mains outside of public eight of way(include alL water ycraiccx and hydrants). Sewcrhwatcr ramnau varies depcndi ng cm wcwcr depth.Scwcr 420 ft deep require a 30 ft caarntcnft,2425 Ram ft eascrncnt.and 25-30 A a 45 ft to crnent- Ensure err pcnrarecnt Anvw res(truce hushes,huilding,�c uportv,trash romptanle wank.fence&infiltration trencher:,light pok%,etc.)arc hulk within the utility easement- Submii an execuled easement(on the form availabLe from Public Works),a Iegal.dcacription prepared by an Tdalut Tieatsed Pmfemwnal UM Surveyor,whLch must Lnelude the arc$of the cascrncni (inadad EXHIBrf A)and an SJr2"A I I"nW with bcarings and distances(marked F}CHJRIT R) for review-Bras exEhits must be scaled,signed and dated by a Pmfemional Land Surveyor-DO NOT RECORD. 4. The City of Meridian requjrcs that prrssuriaed i rrigatinn systems he suppl icd by a year-round source of water(LJDC L L-3B-6).71hc applicam whouLd he rcquiwdto use any existing surfacc-or well waler foethe primary sewree. Tf a surface or well uwrree is ttotavaiLahl asit4elciruni connection in the culinary walers).ti m shall be required_If singLe-poiM ocnncetion iu u ikzod, the developer will he respnmyi-bLc far the payment of*Laoswerku Rw the cornnxxt auras priortn prior to roceiving dcydri iert plan apprcwal- 5. Anyonklures that are allowed in remain shall he irbjeci to cvalt."cm and possible mm.Nignmcni of 4rect addressing to he in compliance with MCC. fi. All irrigation dit&ew,canals,laterals,ordraim,exdwiveof natural waterways,Lntrxseaing, er"ngor laying adjacerdandeod.iguixtito the area hieing subdivided shall he ad&cmed pa kW,I 1-3A#ti In perforrai ng such work,the appLic=shall comply with ldahn CO&42-1207 and any othff applicable law or regulating 7. Any wells that will.fret erwttinue to be used must he propalyr ahandmod according to Idaho WeL1 Cnnstruetion Standards Rulcs admi niitcrad by the Idaho Departnxmi of Water R,sourcc€ The fkvelopef's Fng1ncer shall.provide asiaLemamaddresaing whether tlxroale aay a kfmg welLs in the dcvc qwd cwt,and Lfso,haw they will exmtinuc 0be used,or provide reaawd of their ahandenrncnL X. Any existing gq*c syytcros within this project shall he mmoyed fmrnscrviae perCity Grdinautar. Section 4-L-4 and9 4 8- C.ontactC.enual District Health for abandonmcM prerodaresand ingKc ions(208)37--521 l- 9. Al I imprcwarnerds relatad to public I ife,safety and health;hall he completed prier to oompaney of the 4iructures. 10. Applicant shall be naquired to pay Public Wrwlrs deuelcgw rt plan re4imy.and eomgwwAhin inspection fce-�.isdelermincdduring the plan review peeress,prierm tic bNwmeeofa pLan approval]ct1cr- 11. It shaL]be the responsibility of the appLicam to ensure that"dcvcLoprncnt features owwLy widk the Arneeicams with DLsahLlities Act and the Fair Hansing Act 12. Applicant shall be respnncFjNc for application wd wmpLLxbm with any Section 4M Permitting that may be rcquircd by the Array Corps of Fngjnecm 13. Ucucloper shall cexwdLnue majlhm Loe.%UmLs with the Meridian Post cortm. 14. Ccxupaclion text rcsuLts shad]be submiued in the Mesidjan BuiLdi ng Depautmeni for all bui Iding pads reecivingenginocredbackfiLl,where Wdngwould sitatnp fell material- CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 10 F85 15. The desrgp cnginax shall he requtlyd to certify that the street cerrtulinc clevauoas an set a minimurn of 3-keT abnvc the highest orrablishad rycak,grmmtwaicrdcualion. This is to ensure that the hcaom clevationofthe crawl spaocsof honws is at least l-foot abow- 1 d. The applimea design engineer shdL he n Fwwt!sihla for im"ion of aLL irrigation and+or drainage faciLLty within this project That do not faLL under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district nr A(-.Hf)_The design engineer shall provide ccrtifica[ion that the facilities have barn installed in accordance withtbeapprovcd dcxign plank This certiflu6an will be mquirrd befaxe a oertifwatc of oocupuicy iy isrivad for my stmctwiN withi n the pvejoct 17. At the eon*ction of the pmjoet,the applicant sha1L he mFKwtsihlc to smhnut r mord drawings per the City of Meridian AulfC'AD standards, 'Thane rcoorddrawing4 mustbc receiyaiandappmvod priortn Ose bumanocofacerlifition of nceupancy Row any siruewres within the pmjxt 18. A street Iiou plan will nwdto he included in thecivil oonyu=ion pleas,Street light plan wquiranea&arc Iislad in saetinn 6-5 ofthe Imprtwcmmt Standvrelu for Street Lighting.A cropy of The standards nn he fawrrd at http!lwww.rncridiancity.a cgVpublic wrwits.aspOid-232_ 19. The City of Meridian rcquircs that the owner post[a the City a pexWrmancc smnty in the amaud of 125%of the urrtal consruction cast for alL ineornple ie sewer,water amd m me Lnfrastmawe prior to finarL plat sigrmmrc_This surety will he verified by a LLrne item cost cWmic proyidcd by the o wrxr to the City.7lic surety can be pie"in the farm ofan Lrreyoioble Letter of cradit,cash dcprrrrit nr hand_AppLLcant ramt file an appLieatirrrt fix surety,which can be fomd an the Cnmmunity Dcvclnprncnt Deparbr nt wchsite. PLeasc crwdwi Land Dcydnpmant Service fax mitre infrxmatim at 887-22L L. 20. The City of Meridian Fequires that the owner post To the City a warranty suety in the anwwmt of 20%of ilro tirtal trTrtsrr rk oost for 21L wraplcicd w wa,water and muse iof► mists rc for duralinn oftwo years.This surety wLl I be vef fied by a Line item oast cslinmte provided by the enynar rntlwCity.The surety can he pisdad in the frwm ofaa Lrmyoi>tblc loner of credit,cash lcirosit nr barrd_AppLicant must file an appLieatirwt fix surety,which can be frond rm the C ammmuty DevelapnKr t Dgrarinxnt wcbsite. PLeasc emiml I-and Dewdnprnmt Service fix mitre infrwmatim at 297-22L L. IV. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use (UDC 11-5B-6E) The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: l. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meets all dimensional and development regulations of the recommended L-O zoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. The Commission finds the proposed office use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section IV of this report. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. However, staff recommends that the applicant enhance landscaping between the buildings and along the eastern buffer to align with the neighboring properties to the south. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] ■ Page 11 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section IV of this report. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water,and sewer. The Commission finds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The Commission finds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: This finding is not applicable. 10. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. 11. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. IV. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP application and finds it in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan,UDC with the conditions included in Section IV. and Findings in V. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning &Zoning Commission heard this item on October 171h. 2024. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the sul ect two conditional use permit requests. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Marcel Lopez CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] ■ Page 12 b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: None d. Written testimony: Marcel Lopez e. Staff presenting application: Nick Napoli f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. Whether the perimeter landscaping is sufficient or not. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Removal of the condition requiring additional landscaping to the east. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 13 F88 V. EXHIBITS A. Project 1 o Project Overview) 1. Aerial Legend FAIR-VIEW Project Location Area of Impact a. w • Analysis �`���,. Y. �� � �;�., PINE a , y- it __ ��. �� :���� E -� a•` 1 ��+I CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE ..�� lid� ■ it ■ ® � �1 Y 1 ■ 1, I�� I �_ T���„ie r r s t OVERLAND' Y ' • 1 11 and 1 11 2. Zoning Map . NIX-3 Legend C-C I O Project Location C G ;P� _UT 0 :.:Area of Impact R-40 15 O Analysis R-4 A'-1 Wil_ _ =C-N R-$ L-O M1 1A 111 E, m _ e L R-2 23 C-C. R=4 R-1 C C-G - R6 RUT R2 .. C-G R-40 R' A R-8 L-b .. C_C'. R-15 MAX-2 3. Future Land Use Legend C-G C-C RUT Project Location 1" Area of Impact - $ R-40 ® Analysis R-4 A`-1 I� V�-N L-O R-8 M1 J . R-2 !�Ruil�i� jr R2' L-O C-C R-1 C C-G _ R6 RUT R-2 R-40 R'-1 A L-O C-C,, 5 `MX-2 R-1 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 15 Fqo 4. Planned Development Map Legend Project Location Area of Impact — T=' City Limits Planned Parcels �. O Analysis �L --------------- - -- LLJ 9 FM I I MCI CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 16 F91 B. Service Accessibility Report Description z Location In City Limits GREEN Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or > 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 min. GREEN Emergency Services Pclice Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Within 1/4 mile of current transit route GREEN Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration {#of lanes in master streets GREEN plan) matches existing (# of lanes) School Walking Proximity Within 1/2 mile walking GREEN Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type RED CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 17 F92 C. Site Plan (date: 5/17/2024) `I SITE d4TA OWNER DATA ,x l.e ona v O - a Mercury Eea Alternating o. aelms-ie.:cr. a G. r =- I G� d - Tpy__ u F• W u Y � �D U VQ wow �m vr' CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 18 F93 D. Landscape Plan (date: 10/14/2024) 1/ � � �rv-.«-ter- ..__�r-.�..y �.. • aa•. '� .. �F x i V✓ •• �4iL?Y�" � � : ...`:e—.fin' �_M1r.�•��.:.I �__. .. ®R. * d JAMr I' IVVJJ o - Ti G I a. rs-s-.P� _ OVP L " .....,. .wnscnPe PLL4 v�wA CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 19 F94 E. Building Elevations(date: 4/17/2023) AD nscMKTX F- e� U �{ x: 394 A=1 0 $ o a� U 4 � Jm6m.- M No -°e ■� ® � ®°tea, .��-' — CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 20 F95 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Touchmark Office Building B, by Conger Group, located at 3512 E. Louise Dr. F96 CITY OF MERIDIAN V IDIAN;--- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ! DAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permits for Touchmark Office Buildings A&B, Located at 3512 and 3526 E.Louise Drive in the L-O Zoning District,by Conger Group. Case No(s).H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: October 17t'',2024 (Findings on November 7t",2024) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 17t'', 2024, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 17t'', 2024, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 17', 2024, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 7',2024, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65, Title 67,Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 1 F97 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of October 17',2024, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning &Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 1I- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for Conditional Use Permits is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of October 17`h, 2024, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-513-617.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Judicial Review Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521(1)(d),if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho Code § 67-6521(1)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this final decision may,within twenty-eight (28)days after all remedies have been exhausted, including requesting reconsideration of this final decision as provided by Meridian City Code § 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as provided by chapter 52,title 67, Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of Meridian does not admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA. F. Notice of Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-6521(1)(d) and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the subject of a final decision may submit a written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory takings analysis. G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of October 17", 2024. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 2 F98 7th By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of November ,2024. COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER JARED SMITH,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER BRIAN GARRETT VOTED COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL VOTED COMMISSIONER PATRICK GRACE VOTED COMMISSIONER MATTHEW SANDOVAL VOTED COMMISSIONER SAM RUST VOTED Maria Lorcher, Chairman 11-7-2024 Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 11-7-2024 Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: 11-7-2024 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 3 F99 Exhibit A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,- DEPARTMENT REPORT I DA H O HEARING 10/17/2024 Legend DATE: Project location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Area of impact �r I �= City LimitsF_- FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner O Analysis 208-884-5533 nnapoli@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Marcel Lopez T j o SUBJECT: H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046 + j Touchmark Office Buildings A&B LOCATION: Located at 3512 E. Louise Drive and f 7�- 3526 E. Louise Drive in the north '/4 of Section 16,T.3N.,RJE. (R8509140100 and R8509140090) ==yam I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary The applicant requests a conditional use permit to construct and operate two office buildings (4,760 square feet and 4,534 square feet) on 1.2 acres in the L-O zoning,by Conger Group. B. Recommendation Staff: Approval with conditions. C. Decision Commission: Approved CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 4 Floo II. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant - Proposed Land Use(s) Office - Existing/Proposed Zoning L-O V.A.2 Future Land Use Designation MU-C(Mixed Use Community) V.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 8/6/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 8/21/2024 Site posting date 10/4/2024 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access Private Drive Aisle - ITD Comments Received No - Meridian Public Works Wastewater III.B • Distance to Mainline Available at site • Impacts or Concerns No Meridian Public Works Water III.B • Distance to Mainline Available at site • Impacts or Concerns No Note: See section III. City/Agency Comments & Conditions for comments received or see the public record: (https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLink/Browse.aWx?id=362259&dbid=0&repo=Meridian C Lty)- CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 5 Flol III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview This property is designated as Mixed-Use Community(MU-C)on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The proposed use for office buildings is consistent with prior approvals and the comprehensive plan for the MU-C designation. The subject sites are among several commercially zoned properties surrounding the corner of S. Touchmark Way and E. Franklin Road. The proposed office buildings align with the desired uses specified within the Mixed-Use Community designation. In conjunction with the existing office buildings,proposed future residential, and existing residential the proposed use satisfies the mix of uses desired in the MU-C designation. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History AZ-05-022; PP-05-054;CUP-05-050 Acreage 1.2 acres B. History and Process The subject property was annexed in May 2001 (Ordinance No. 01.917) and approved a conditional use permit(CUP-05-050)for the applicant to develop the property into a mixed-use retirement community consisting of residential dwellings,medical offices,commercial/retail businesses, and a senior community center. The CUP requires all lots within the scope of the permit to receive detailed CUP approval prior to developing the property. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed use of office buildings aligns well with the Mixed-Use Neighborhood(MU-C) future land use designation,which supports a blend of residential, commercial,and recreational uses. Office buildings are typically principally permitted in the L-O zoning, however, due to a provision in the CUP from 2005, all properties require a detailed CUP approval. By offering service options within proximity to both residential areas and existing commercial developments,this project contributes to the community's overall livability and sustainability. Specifically, it adheres to Policy 3.06.02B,which encourages and supports mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of living, shopping, dining, and working nearby, thereby reducing vehicle trips. To align with the current development, staff recommends that the applicant enhance landscaping between the buildings and along the eastern buffer. Goal 2.09.02E of the comprehensive plan emphasizes the importance of consistent landscaping standards for developments. Therefore, staff is advising that these improvements be included with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review submission. 2. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Development of the site hall comply with the dimensional standards of the L-O zoning district in UDC Table 11-2B-3.Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and building elevations and they comply with the required standards. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 6 F1 D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Parking lot landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all parking areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8. The proposed landscape plan shall be revised to include a tree in the planter island to the west of the trash enclosure on the northern property the minimum requirements. ii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses Landscaping is required to meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-9. The landscape plan meets the minimum requirements. iii. Storm integration Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. 2. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Nonresidential parking analysis A minimum of one(1) off street parking space is required per 500 square feet of gross floor area. Based on the buildings ranging between 4,534 and 4,760 square feet, 19 parking stalls are required between the two(2) sites.A total of 37 parking stalls are provided exceeding the required parking. ii. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space must be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C.Bicycle parking is depicted on the plans submitted with this application that meet the requirements. 3. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Goal 2.09.03A of the Comprehensive Plan highlights establishing distinct, engaging identities within commercial and mixed-use enters through design standards to integrate commercial, multifamily,and parking areas with existing neighborhoods. In response,the developer has submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed structure as shown in Section VII.C. Building materials consist of EIFS stucco, craft chop ledge panels, standing seam metal panels, steel canopies, and glazing. The proposed conceptual elevations are approved. The final design is required to comply with the Architectural Standards Manual for Commercial Design Guidelines. E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Goal 6.01.02B emphasizes reducing the number of access points onto arterial streets by utilizing strategies such as cross-access agreements, access management, and the creation of frontage and backage roads,while also improving connectivity between local and collector streets. The site plan features a single access point via a private drive aisle located on the western part of the site. This private drive aisle connects to S. Touchmark Way and E. Louise Drive(collector streets). Staff has concerns with the location of the trash enclosure,however,Republic Services has approved these locations. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 7 F1 2. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): The proposed plan includes a pedestrian walkway from the main sidewalk on the north side of the buildings connecting to the front of each building. Pedestrians do not need to cross driving surfaces to connect with these building so delineation from the drive aisle is not required. The site/landscape plan submitted both reflect compliance with this standard. F. Services Analysis 1. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-15. 2. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. 3. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Both the Plan and the UDC establish policy and regulations for extending and connecting to City utilities. Goal 3.03.03G of the Plan mandates urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments,including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities. All utilities for the proposed development are required to be installed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-21. III. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the previous conditions of approval and terms of AZ-05-022; PP-05-054; CUP-05-050; and FP-06-012 and the conditions contained herein. 2. The site plan and/or landscape plan, as applicable, shall be revised with the certificate of zoning compliance application as follows: The eastei%!a-adseape buffer-and area between the buildings shall be revised - A tree shall be depicted in the planter island to the west of the trash enclosure on the northern property. 3. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design of the site and structure shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19;the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and with the Development Agreement. 4. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6. A time extension may be requested asset forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 8 F1 B. Meridian Public Works PRE-PLA'f COND1'11ONS wastewater + Dkstancetn; tiwer SewerAvailable atsibe Services Sewer shed a kstimated Project see application Sewer ERU'S • WRRI Ueclinmg Balance • ProfectCamiste•nt Yes with W4Y Master FlaOF aclifty Plan • Impa Lt5�e8r1cerns • + See Public Wafks Site Specific Conditions Water Ekganoetowater waterhvaklahleatsite Services • Pre551ffe LUrre + Estimated Project see application WaterkRU's • WaltertLuakty None • Flopct Can515te nt yes with Water Master Plan ImpaotS/Cencerns Nave-Please see Public warksstte specific C:ondrtions NON-P LAY CON lll'IlONS hPt.mm:444mL3DrPARTmi--r Site Spc lfie Candllians of Approval I. Thae is an existing Aub bmated at the SW corner ofthc wile-Wake nx-tcr FKcd'.to connect within T front end ofAulk Callout mmoyal of the Rlnw-off.Water nx ery need to be located ins 1mdmap1og area 2. W aier services rcqui rc a 21Y oa crnent up to the waicr meter.The city regL"that the cs cincnt extrnd;IQ'past the water mderbut nnly S'lq fcyujrcd. 3. Single stnrxtuc multi-tiuml unit,that am for renal nnly should have a-ingV City nxiw.Ifthe unity wil I he cwmcd individually,dKn cash mee&a wwix meter. 4. CagwwL,and rAhm penmanem suimb rq(trees,hwhcs,buildings,trash rouygae]c ualLz,fend, infiltration trendies light pales,ram}i-,anntx Ix built within the utility Fa cmcm 5- .Ensure nn Rcwcrsmiccrt eFem infiltratirrfitrenehes.Rcwersctviec Ijnc.q tJ:m)ugh underground wqWhe hcxi'.in-'.Value aM rxii aillawtxi WdMi Uppmved by dw Cicy 1kLginccr- 6. Water scrvioeri requite a 21Y c ienwO up to and li7'beyond the meta%ar as cJck;c to 16'aw perm-ble- CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 9 F1 C;raeral Condition!;of approval 1. Applicaut shall ecKxdiaatewatcr aad wewer ina.in size and mutiag with the Public Wc' rkw DeparuncnL 2. Pcr Meridian CLty Co&(MCC'),the applicant shall be re lwtesiNe is k"I wewer and wake mains to and through this devcLopnwmL Applicant may he cLigible for a reimtwrsnrou agreement forinfrairmfim enhanccrnent per MCC 9-&5. 3. The applicant wall provide cascmcnt(s)for all public watalacwar mains outside of public eight of way(include alL water ycraiccx and hydrants). Sewcrhwatcr ramnau varies dgrcndi ng cm wcwcr depth.Scwcr 420 ft deep require a 30 ft caarntcnft,2425 Ram ft eascrncnt.and 25-30 A a 45 ft C&sCment- Ensure err pcnrarecnt Anvw res(truce hushes,huilding,�cuportv,trash romptanle wank.fence&infiltration trencher:,light pok%,etc.)arc hulk within the utility easement- Submii an execuled easement(on the form availabLe from Public Works),a Iegal.dcacription prepared by an Tdalut Tieatsed Pmfemwnal Deed Surveyor,whLch must Lnelude the arc$of the cascntcni (inadad EXHIBrf A)and an SJr2"A I I"nW with bcarings and distances(marked F}CHJRIT R) for review-Bras exEhits must be scaled,signed and dated by a Pmfemional Land Surveyor-DO NOT RECORD. 4. The City of Meridian requjrcs that prrssuriaed i rrigatinn systems he supplied by a year-round source of water(LJDC L L-3B-6).71hc applicam whouLd he rcquiwdto use any existing surfacc-or well waler foethe printery sewree. Tf a strrfaec or well uwrree is ttotavaiLahl asit4elciruni connection in the culinary walers).ti m shall be required_If s rkSLo-poirt connection iw u ikzod, the developer will he respnnyi-blc far the payment of*Laoswerku Rw the cornnxxt auras priortn prior to roceiving dcydri iert plan apprcwal- 5. Anyonklures that are allowed in remain shall he subject to cvalt."cm and possible mm.Nignmcni of 4rect addressing to he in compliance with MCC. fi. All irrigation dit&em,canals,laterals,ordraim,exdwiveof natural waterways,Lntrxseaing, er"ngor laying adjacerdandeod.iguixtito the area hieing subdivided shell he ad&cmed pa kW,I 1-3A#ti In perforrai ng such work,the appLic=shall comply with ldahn CO&42-1207 and any othff appLioable law or regulating 7. Any wells that will.fret erwttinue to be used must he propalyr ahandnned according to Idaho WeL1 Censtrurtion Standards Rulcs admi niitcrad by the Idaho Diepartmeni of Water RcsoureC€ The fkvelopef's Fng1ncer shall.provide asiaLemamaddresaing whether tlxroale aay a kfmg welLs in the dcvc qwd cwt,and Lfso,haw they will exmtinuc 0be used,or provide reaawd of their ahandenrncnL X. Any existing gq*c syytcros within this project shall he mmoycid fmrnscrviae perCity Grdinautar. Section 4-L-4 and9 4 8- C.ontactC.enual District Health for abandonmcM prerodaresand ingKc ions(208)37--521 l- 9. Al I imprcwannerds related to public I ife,safety and health;hall he completed prier to oompaney of the 4iructures. 10. Applicant shall be naquired to pay Public Wrwlrs deuelcgw rt plan re4imy.and eomgwwAhin inspection fce-�.isdelermincdduring the plan review peeress,priorm tic bNwmceofa pLan approval]ct1cr- 11. It shaL]be the responsibility of the appLicam to ensure that"dcvcLoprncnt features owwLy widk the Arneeicam with DLsahLlities Act and the Fair Hansing Act 12. Applicant shall be respnncFjNc for application wd wmpLiance with any Section 4M Permitting that may be rcquircd by the Army Corps of Fngjnecm 13. Ucucloper shall caxrrdLrkue majlhnx Locations with the Meridian Post cortm. 14. Ccxupaclion text rcsuLts shad]be submiued in the Mesidjam BuiLdi ng Depautmeni for all bui Iding pads reecivingrnginocredbackfiLl,where Wdngwould sitatnp fell material- CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 10 F1 15. The desrgp cnginax shall he requtlyd to certify that the street cerrtulinc clevauoas an set a minimurn of 3-keT abnvc the highest orrablishad rycak,grmmtwaicrdcualion. This is to ensure that the hcaom clevationofthe crawl spaocsof honws is at least l-foot abow- 1 d. The applimea design eng1wer sha1L he n Fwwt!sihla for im"ion of aLL irrigation and+or drainage faciLLty within this project That do not faLL under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district nr A(-.Hf)_The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have barn installed in accordance withtbeapprovcd dcxign plank This certiflu6an will be mquirrd befcxe a oertifwatc of oocuparicy iy isrivad for my stmctwiN withi n the pvejoct 17. At the eon*ction of the pmjoet,the applicant sha1L he mFKwtsihlc to smhnut rmord drawings per the City of Meridian AulfC'AD standards, 'Thane rcoorddrawing4 mustbc receiyaiandappmvod priortn Ose bumanocofacerlifition of nceupancy few any siruewres within the pmjxt 18. A street Iiou plan will nwdto he included in thecivil oonyu=ion pleas,Street light plan wquiranea&arc Iislad in saetinn 6-5 ofthe Imprtwcmmt Standvrelu for Street Lighting.A cropy of The standards can he fawrrd at http!lwww.rncridiancity.a cgVpublic wrwits.aspOid-232_ 19. The City of Meridian rcquircs that the owner post[a the City a pexWrmancc smnty in the amaud of 125%oftho urrtalconsruction crrstforalL ineornplete sewer,water and m me Lnfrastmawe prior to finarL plat sigrmmrc_This surety will he verified by a LLrne item cost cWmic proyidcd by the a wrxr to the City.7lic surety can be pie"in the farm ofan Lrreyocoble Letter of cradit,cash dcprrrrit nr hand_AppLLcant ramt file an appLieaticrrt fix surety,which can be fomd an the Community Dcvclnprncnt Deparbr nt wchsite. PLeasc crwdwi Land Dcydnpmant Service fax mitre infrxmatim at 887-22L L. 20. The City of Meridian Fequires that the owner post To the City a warranty suety in the amount of 20%of ilro tcrtal trTrtsrr rk oost for 21L wraplcicd w wa,water and muse iof► mists rc for duralinn oftwo years.This surety wLl I be vef fied by a Line item oast cslinmte provided by the enynar rntlwCity.The surety can he pisdad in the fcwm ofaa LrmyomW loner of credit,cash lcirosit nr barrd_AppLicant must file an appLicadm fix surety,which can be frond rwt the Community DevelapnKr t Dgrarinxnt wcbsite. PLeasc emiml I-and Dewdroprnmt Service fix mire infcwmatim at 297-22L L. IV. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use (UDC 11-5B-6E) The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meets all dimensional and development regulations of the recommended L-O zoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. The Commission finds the proposed office use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section IV of this report. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. However, staff recommends that the applicant enhance landscaping between the buildings and along the eastern buffer to align with the neighboring properties to the south. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page ll F1 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section IV of this report. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water,and sewer. The Commission finds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The Commission finds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: This finding is not applicable. 10. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. 11. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. IV. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP application and finds it in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan,UDC with the conditions included in Section IV. and Findings in V. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning &Zoning Commission heard this item on October 171h. 2024. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the sul ect two conditional use permit requests. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Marcel Lopez CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page12 F1 b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: None d. Written testimony: Marcel Lopez e. Staff presenting application: Nick Napoli f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. Whether the perimeter landscaping is sufficient or not. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Removal of the condition requiring additional landscaping to the east. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 13 Flog V. EXHIBITS A. Project 1 o Project Overview) 1. Aerial Legend FAIR-VIEW Project Location Area of Impact a. w • Analysis �`���,. Y. �� � �;�., PINE a , y- it __ ��. �� :���� E -� a•` 1 ��+I CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE ..�� lid� ■ it ■ ® � �1 Y 1 ■ 1, I�� I �_ T���„ie r r s t OVERLAND' Y ' • 1 11 and 1 11 2. Zoning Map . NIX-3 Legend C-C � O Project Location C G ;P�,_, _UT :.:Area of Impact R-40 15 O Analysis R-4 A'-1 Wil_ _ =C-N R-$ L-O M1 1A 111 E, m _ e L R-2 23 C-C. R=4 R-1 C C-G - R6 RUT R2 .. C-G R-40 R' A R-8 L-b .. C_C'. R-15 MAX-2 3. Future Land Use Legend C-G C-C RUT Project Location 1" Area of Impact - $ R-40 ® Analysis R-4 A`-1 I� V�-N L-O R-8 M1 J . R-2 !�Ruil�i� jr R2' L-O C-C R-1 C C-G _ R6 RUT R-2 R-40 R'-1 A L-O C-C,, 5 `MX-2 R-1 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 15 F1 4. Planned Development Map Legend Project Location Area of Impact — T=' City Limits Planned Parcels �. O Analysis �L --------------- - -- LLJ 9 FM I I MCI CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 16 F1 B. Service Accessibility Report Description z Location In City Limits GREEN Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or > 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 min. GREEN Emergency Services Pclice Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Within 1/4 mile of current transit route GREEN Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration {#of lanes in master streets GREEN plan) matches existing (# of lanes) School Walking Proximity Within 1/2 mile walking GREEN Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type RED CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 17 F1 C. Site Plan (date: 5/17/2024) `I SITE d4TA OWNER DATA ,x l.e ona v O - a Mercury Eea Alternating o. aelms-ie.:cr. a G. r =- I G� d - Tpy__ u F• W u Y � �D U VQ wow �m vr' CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 18 Fil 4 D. Landscape Plan (date: 10/14/2024) 1/ � � �rv-.«-ter- ..__�r-.�..y �.. • aa•. '� .. �F x i V✓ •• �4iL?Y�" � � : ...`:e—.fin' �_M1r.�•��.:.I �__. .. ®R. * d JAMr I' IVVJJ o - Ti G I a. rs-s-.P� _ OVP L " .....,. .wnscnPe PLL4 v�wA CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 19 F1 E. Building Elevations(date: 4/17/2023) AD nscMKTX F- e� U �{ x: 394 A=1 0 $ o a� U 4 � Jm6m.- M No -°e ■� ® � ®°tea, .��-' — CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046] Page 20 F1 E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline h2 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting November 7, 2024 Future Land Use MapAerial MapZoning Map Future Land Use MapAerial MapZoning Map •unless specified elsewhere.”ASM Standard: Goal 3.3D “Average 30% fenestration for applicable first floor façade •with the TMISAP.”exception to potentially reduce the fenestration requirement to 20% in accordance required in the Architectural Standards Manual or apply for a design standard shall incorporate additional fenestration to meet an average of 30% of fenestration New Development Agreement Provision: “The northern half of the eastern façade •doorways”have an average of 15% of linear dimension of the frontage in windows and site, along interstate 84, and the northern boundary of the site shall be required to east and west collector road (Grand Mogul Road) running through the middle of the TMISAP development guideline, building facades fronting on and adjacent to the Existing Development Agreement Provision: “Notwithstanding any provision in the •20% in accordance with the TMISAP.”a design standard exception to potentially reduce the fenestration requirement to the Architectural Standards Manual calculated on a linear dimension or apply for “The northern half of the eastern façade shall meet the fenestration required in Aerial MapFuture Land Use MapZoning Map R46.691 Acres (286 lots)•15-R17.274 Acres (51 lots)•8- Kuna School District Future Land Use MapAerial MapZoning Map Future Land Use MapAerial MapZoning Map OffBlack Cat Rd.site Pathway along - Future Land Use MapAerial MapZoning Map Changes to Agenda: None Item#5:Tone Fitness Studio(H-2024-0047) Application(s): Conditional Use Permit Size of property,existing zoning,and location: This site consists of 0.65 acres of land,zoned L-0, located at 3064 W. Milano Drive. History: The property was annexed in 2003 with R-8 zoning and in 2005 a rezone application was approved for L-0 Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Office Summary of Request: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit request to operate an indoor recreation facility(Indoor Gym) in a suite from an existing 3,887 square foot multi-tenant building. The proposed use of an indoor recreation facility(indoor gym) is a conditional use in the L-0 zoning. The L-0 zoning and FLUM designation is meant to provide opportunities for low-impact business areas which typically includes professional offices, research and development, etc.This use adheres to Policy 3.07.02B,which promotes locating smaller scale, neighborhood serving commercial and offices in close proximity to residential for convenient access.While an indoor recreation facility can create a large impact on the area, this indoor recreation facility is more specialized allowing for only 12 clients at any one time.Additionally,there will be no outside activity. The proposed indoor recreation facility provides a unique neighbor serving use that can be an essential use for residents in the area. The L-0 zoning district restricts hours of operation from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm. The applicant has agreed to comply with this. The site has already been approved and construction has been completed. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Written Testimony: None Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2024-0050, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 7'h,2024: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2024-0050, as presented during the hearing on November 71h, 2024,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0050 to the hearing date of_for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item#6: Black Cat East(H-2024-0047) Application(s):Annexation and Development Agreement Modification Size of property,existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 3.62 acres of land,zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 935 S. Black Cat Road. History: This property was part of the initial application for Black Cat Industrial (H-2021-0064), but it was not annexed at that time. The applicant is now seeking annexation to integrate this property into the surrounding development and align it with broader planning efforts in the area.While I-L is not the preferred zone in the Mixed-Employment designation, the City Council previously approved a request for this zone in the surrounding development. Due to this,the applicant requests the same exceptions granted by the City Council in the previous application to ensure cohesive and consistent development. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Employment Summary of Request: The applicant is requesting annexation and a development agreement modification of 3.62 acres of land with the I-L zoning district to construct an approximately 74,365 square foot industrial building. In 2022,a traffic impact study was completed with the previous application and was not required with this application. However, the TIS addressed concerns regarding traffic from this development and it was found that the infrastructure will be able to manage the 2.2 million square feet that will be developed within the broader project. This property was included within the scope of the TIS. Additionally,there were thresholds placed on occupied square footage that will trigger roadway and infrastructure improvements as the development continues to be built out. The surrounding developments have similar requirements/restrictions on the development until certain road improvements are completed. According to the concept plan,the predominant use appears to be warehousing and distribution,which is consistent with the surrounding area and aligns with the City Council's previous approval. Given this consistency, staff recommends that this parcel be developed in accordance with that approval to ensure an integrated approach. Access is proposed off an existing curb cut on W. Grand Mogul Drive which is consistent with original concept plan. Additionally,the applicant has provided 10-foot detached sidewalks on both sides of W. Grand Mogul Drive consistent with the Pathway Master Plan. The landscaping and building elevations will be evaluated with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance and design review. The applicant is proposing a large one-story industrial building (with higher ceilings and upper windows to appear as two-story) comprised of tilt-up concrete, moderate to large setbacks from the street, and frontages below the required 30%fenestration requirement along public streets as mentioned in the ASM. Primary entrances are oriented inward toward the parking lots rather than toward the street(N. Black Cat Road).The applicant's narrative states that due to security and visibility concerns, lack of access to directly to Black Cat Road, and frontage parking being discouraged, the light industrial use of the buildings does not support windows across the entire frontage.As an alternative,they propose enhanced glazing at corner entry elements as shown in the renderings. The DA mandates adherence to the TMISAP design guidelines and the ASM. Since the ASM sets a more stringent requirement of 30% fenestration compared to the 20%specified by the TMISAP, compliance with the ASM (30%fenestration)is necessary. However, the applicant may request a design standards exception during the review process to potentially reduce the fenestration to 20% in accordance with the TMISAP.Additionally, staff recommends adding landscaping at the base of the east fagade to create pedestrian- scale elements while helping break up the building's fagade. Written Testimony: Clay Sammis(Applicant/Developer): In opposition of staff condition for 30%fenestration on the northern half of the eastern fagade. The applicant would like it measured based on linear feet instead of square footage. Staff is not in agreement but you may choose to recommend the provision change to city council. Staff Recommendation:Approval with a development agreement. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2024-0047, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 71h, 2024,with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2024- 0047, as presented during the hearing on November 71h, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0047 to the hearing date of for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item#7: Summerlin West(H-2024-0023) Application(s): Annexation with Zoning Size of property,existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 63.17 acres of land, currently zoned Rural Urban Transition (RUT) in Ada County, Located in the NW'/4 of the SW'/4 of Section 5, Township 2N, Range 1 E, parcels: R5147110200, R5147110324, R5147110342 and S1405315235. History: Laredo Estates Subdivision Lots 2 and 3 Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential and Low Density Residential Summary of Request: An annexation with zoning from RUT(Rural Urban Transition)to R-8(medium density)and R-15(medium-high density)and a preliminary plat application to allow for the development of a 367-lot subdivision consisting of 337 residential building lots and 28 common lots on 63.17-acres. Issues/Waivers: • Kuna School District states they cannot serve the proposed development because the proposed plats in this zone are beyond district capacity. This proposed development will impact Silver Trail Elementary, Fremont Middle School, Kuna High School and Swan Falls High School zones which are already at or over capacity with the current enrollment. • Waiver for Block Face Length per UDC 11-6C-3F for E. Crimson Clover Drive exceeding the maximum requirement of 1,200 feet. • Waiver to keep the Rawson Canal open per UDC 11-3A-6. • Access management and potential impacts due to the close proximity of the private road (E. Cavalli Lane)to the proposed public road (Summerlin Drive). Staff feels the applicant and the adjacent property owner should coordinate to develop a shared access solution. The proposed density for the 17.274 acres of land for the R-8 zoning district equates to 2.95 du/ac and 6.12 du/ac for the 46.691 acres proposed for R-15 zoning. The applicant states the proposed project has an overall gross density of 5.37 du/ac, meeting the required density range listed above. Staff finds the proposed preliminary plat and requested R-8 and R-15 zoning districts to be generally consistent with the Future Land Use Map designation for medium and low density residential. The R-15 zoning designation,which allows for reduced lot sizes down to 2,000 square feet, provides flexibility for developers to support a diversity and variety of housing types. This can create a dynamic, multi-generational community where residents can transition through different stages of life(known as aging in place)while remaining in the same neighborhood.This type of zoning in conjunction with other designations should be used to support a diverse housing mix that supports long-term residency and continuity within the community, promoting stability and a sense of place for residents throughout different stages of life. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.01.01 encourages diverse housing options suitable for various income levels, household sizes and lifestyle preferences. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.01.01 G states development should avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area; provide for diverse housing types throughout the City. Therefore, staff recommends the applicant provide a mix of dwelling type such as single family attached or townhomes within Block 2 (lots 2-12), Block 3(lots 2-20), and Block 4(lots 2-20)of the proposed development as supported by the Comprehensive Plan within the R-15 zoning district. Although the R-8 zoning meets the requirements of three(3)or less dwelling units per acre, it does not meet the intent of the low density residential FLUM designation as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Low Density Residential allows for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre.These areas often transition between existing rural residential and urban properties. Developments need to respect agricultural heritage and resources, recognize view sheds and open spaces,and maintain or improve the overall atmosphere of the area.The use of open spaces, parks,trails, and other appropriate means should enhance the character of the area. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school,or land dedicated for public services. Staffs recommendation is to shift from an R-8 zoning designation to an R-2 or R-4 zoning with larger lot sizes(8,000-12,000 square feet) which aligns with the goal of creating a smoother transition between rural and urban properties. The emphasis on larger estate lots in the transition area serves several important purposes: • Preserving Rural Character:By opting for larger lots, the development can offer a buffer that respects the rural and agricultural heritage of the area, maintaining a sense of openness. • Recognizing Scenic View Sheds and Open Space:Larger lots allow for more open space, which can help preserve key views and create a less dense, more spacious environment. This approach is particularly valuable if the area has scenic or historic value that residents and the community wish to preserve. • Ensuring Compatibility: Transitioning with larger lots prevents a stark contrast between high-density urban properties and lower-density rural areas, helping to avoid potential issues with traffic, noise, and visual impacts for existing rural properties. • Enhancing Quality of Life:Maintaining open spaces and respecting the area's agricultural roots can contribute to a more cohesive community atmosphere, balancing growth with the preservation of the area's heritage. The recommendation supports a balanced growth approach that would be more sensitive to the area's unique character and appeal. Access: Access to the property is proposed from Summerlin Drive via S. Locust Grove. Secondary access is proposed to be provided via a new north/south collector roadway(Barchetta Avenue)abutting the site's east property line. For Ada County Highway District not to limit the development to 1,000 trips per day or the final platting of 100 building lots until secondary access is provided,the applicant is proposing to construct an emergency access onto Locust Grove Road approximately 430 feet south of Summerlin Drive and in alignment with Ambervale Street. There is an approved stub street as part of the Hadler Subdivision located north of the site. There is an existing private road, Cavali Lane, separating this site and Hadler Subdivision that will be required to be closed at the intersection with Locust Grove when the parcels to the east being served by this roadway develop. To allow for the stub street that was approved as part of Hadler Subdivision to be extended in the future and allow for site circulation,the applicant was required to provide a stub street to the site's north property boundary line and in alignment with the stub street approved with Hadler Subdivision. Staff has concerns regarding access management and potential impacts due to the close proximity of the private road (E. Cavalli Lane) to the proposed public road (Summerlin Drive). Staff feels the applicant and the adjacent property owner should coordinate to develop a shared access solution.A shared access point could potentially reduce traffic congestion and simplify entry/exit points, particularly for larger developments and not leave fifty(50)feet of undeveloped land. The applicant needs to provide a stub street to parcel# R8315200030 to the south of the property. Per ACHD, other than access specifically approved with this application, direct access to Locust Grove is prohibited. Elevations: Three(3) conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed subdivision as shown in Exhibit VII.K.The applicant states the homes in the Summerlin West Subdivision will include 337 homes with a mix of different product types, two-story and single-story detached single-family homes. Buildings shall be designed with elevations that create interest through the use of broken planes,windows, and fenestrations that produce a rhythm of materials and patterns. Design review is not required for single-family detached structures. However, because the rear and/or sides of homes facing S. Locust Grove Road, S. Barchetta Avenue and the collector portion of Summerlin Drive will be highly visible, Staff recommends a DA provision requiring those elevations incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step-backs, pop-outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types,or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from adjacent public streets. Single-story homes are exempt from this requirement. Design review is required for single-family attached and townhomes. Design review will have to meet the requirements outlined in the City's Architectural Standards Manual. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.01.01 C encourages the applicants to maintain a range of residential land use designations that allow diverse lot sizes, housing types, and densities. To support this policy staff recommends the applicant provide additional housing options (i.e.townhomes, single family attached) in the development. Kuna School District: The school district states they cannot serve the proposed development because the proposed plats in this zone are beyond district capacity.This proposed development will impact Silver Trail Elementary, Fremont Middle School, Kuna High School and Swan Falls High School zones which are already at or over capacity with the current enrollment. Unlike West Ada School District, the Kuna School District does not have a lot of options when it comes to busing students to different schools or redrawing the school boundaries. Conditions: • Revise the plat map to shift to reflect R2 or R-4 zoning for lots 31-71, Block 1 and provide a legal description. Submit to the City fifteen (15)days prior to the City Council meeting. • Provide a stub road from E. Summerlin Drive to parcel#R8315200030. • Revise preliminary plat map to show the right-of-way dedication along S. Locust Grove Road. Written Testimony: Anna Canning, Centurion Engineering, Inc. - 1)treatment of Cavalli Lane, 2) phasing of stub streets and utilities, and 3)the sizing of the sewer line in the project. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and preliminary plat per the conditions of approval included in Section IV in accord accordance with the Findings. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-2024- 0023, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of[date],with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2024-0023, as presented during the hearing on [date], for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0023 to the hearing date of(insert continued hearing date here)for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s)for continuance) Item#8: Pine 43 West-CUP(H-2024-0038) Application(s): Conditional Use Permit Size of property,existing zoning,and location: This site consists of 2.18-acres of land,zoned C-G, located at the SWC of N.Webb Ave. & E. Fairview Ave. History: This property was annexed in 2017 as part of the larger Pine 43 development and included in a DA. The configuration of the property was created through a ROS approved with a PBA application. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use—Community(MU-C) Summary of Request: The Applicant requests approval of a CUP for a drive-through establishment in a C-G zoning district within 300' of existing residential uses and zoning to the west&south. The drive-through is for a restaurant which will be located in the western- most tenant space of a new 10,100-square foot multi-tenant building on the southern portion of the site. No specific tenant has been identified at this time; however, it's anticipated that the drive-through will only provide pick-up service for pre-ordered items—no queueing is anticipated while products are being prepared. The site plan also depicts a building &associated parking on the northern portion of the site for future development. Access is proposed via N. Webb Way, a collector street, at the east boundary of the site—local street access isn't available for the site; direct access via Fairview Ave. is prohibited. The site plan depicts a total of 43 off-street parking spaces for the multi-tenant building housing the restaurant,which meets&exceeds UDC standards. Compliance with the specific use standards in the UDC for drive-through establishments is required. Stacking lanes are required to have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways,drive aisles, and the public right-of-way by patrons. The proposed restaurant features a stacking lane with space to queue approximately(3)vehicles. Because only pick-up service is anticipated to be provided, this should be adequate queueing; however, Staff does have concerns it may not be if a future use allows drive-up ordering and queueing.The Commission should determine if a re-design is necessary to accommodate more stacking; or if a restriction should be placed on the use(&future uses)to not allow ordering and queueing on-site. The proposed use complies with the other standards, as follows: • The stacking lane is a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access&parking; • The stacking lane isn't located within 10' of a residential district or existing residence—a 38'wide landscape buffer&a 6'tall fence is provided between the drive-through&the residential uses to the west; • The stacking lane is below 100' in length but an escape lane is provided,which can also be used to exit the site. • The drive-through is visible from a public street(i.e. E.Wilson St.)for surveillance purposes. A minimum 25'wide street buffer is required along E. Fairview Ave., an arterial street, and minimum 20'wide street buffers are required along E.Wilson St. &N.Webb Way, both collector streets, landscaped in accord with UDC standards.A minimum 25'wide buffer is required along the west boundary of the site adjacent to existing residential uses.The Applicant requests approval of a reduced buffer width along the northern portion ranging from 5'to 10' adjacent to parking and the rear of the building on Pad A and a reduced building setback of 15'for the building on Pad A. The UDC allows City Council to modify the buffer width at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners if determined appropriate. Because CUP applications don't require Council approval,the Applicant will need to submit a request for Council review of the Commission's decision in this matter for their request to be heard. The Applicant has submitted a letter from the abutting property owner, as recommended by Staff, in support of the proposed reduced buffer width & building setback. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed single-story structure as shown. Building materials consist of wood (rough sawn douglas fir), brick, concrete, stone, longboard siding, stucco and glazing with standing seam metal roofing. Final design is required to comply with the commercial design standards in the ASM. Written Testimony: James Marsh, CSHQA(Applicant's Representative)- In agreement w/staff report conditions Staff Recommendation:Approval w/conditions Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number [#], as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 7, 2024,with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number[#], as presented during the hearing on November 7, 2024,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number[#]to the hearing date of(insert continued hearing date here)for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item#9:Addison Circle—AZ, PP(H-2024-0040) Application:Annexation &Zoning and Preliminary Plat Size of property,existing zoning,and location: This site consists of 1.87-acres of land,zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 4535 N. Black Cat Rd. (Note:there was a scrivener's error on the address for the notice—it was mistakenly noticed as 4635 N. Black Cat Rd.) History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR(3-8 units/acre) Summary of Request: The Applicant proposes to annex the subject infill property into the City with R-8 zoning for the development of (7) SFR detached homes at a gross density of 3.74 units per acre consistent with the use and density desired in the MDR designation. The proposed R-8 zoning is consistent with the zoning of adjacent surrounding properties,also zoned R-8. Staff recommends a DA is required as a provision of annexation that includes the provisions in the staff report. A preliminary plat is proposed to subdivide the subject 1.87-acre property into 7 building lots and 1 common lot. Proposed lots sizes range in size from 4,399 to 7,157 s.f.with homes ranging in size from 1,872 to 2,265 s.f. Access is proposed via the extension of W. Torana St.,an existing local street stubbed to this property. A cul-de-sac is proposed at the end of Torana St.with no access allowed via Black Cat Rd. Council approval of the dead-end street is required as it exceeds the maximum UDC length standard of 500'at 545'.With approval of the dead-end street, a pathway connection is required through the common area between the sidewalk along Black Cat&Torana St. Black Cat Rd. is scheduled in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes between Ustick&McMillan between 2031 and 2035. Because the site is below 5-acres in size, it's exempt from the common open space and site amenity standards in the UDC. A minimum 25'wide landscaped street buffer is required along Black Cat Rd., an arterial street,with a 5'wide detached sidewalk.The sidewalk to the north of this site along N. Black Cat Rd. doesn't extend all the way to the subject property—it stops at the common lot where the canal is located.There is an asphalt pathway that exists on the northern portion of the common lot but stops at the south side of the headgate, creating a 15+/-gap. Staff recommends as a provision of the DA that a detached asphalt pathway is constructed off-site to the north to the existing pathway. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed SFR homes as shown. Building materials are proposed to consist of a mix of horizontal cottage lap, vertical board &batten and shake lap hardi-board siding with stone and brick wainscot accents and 30- year architectural shingles. Because structures on Lots 3 and 5, Block 1 will be highly visible from N. Black Cat Rd., an arterial street, Staff recommends the sides of homes on these lots incorporate articulation &modulation to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Written Testimony: David Crawford, Centurion Engineering (Applicant's Representative)—in agreement with Staff recommendation Staff Recommendation:Approval w/conditions Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2024-0040, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 7, 2024,with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2024- 0040, as presented during the hearing on November 7, 2024,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0040 to the hearing date of(insert continued hearing date here)for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s)for continuance) Item#10: Apex Phenomenal—PP(H-2024-0041) Application(s): ➢ Preliminary Plat Size of property,existing zoning,and location: This site consists of 16.15-acres of land, zoned R-15, generally located on the north side of E. Lake Hazel Rd., approximately%mile west of S. Locust Grove Rd. History: This property was annexed in 2015 with an R-4 (place holder)zoning district as part of the South Meridian Category A annexation and included in a DA.The property was later rezoned to the R-15 zoning district in 2020 and a new DA was recorded that removed this property from the original agreement. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MHDR(8-12 units/acre) Summary of Request: The Applicant requests approval of a preliminary plat to subdivide the subject property into 64 SFR building lots, 11 common lots and (1)other lot for future development. A mix of single-family attached &detached units are proposed on the eastern half of the property, providing a mix of dwelling types,at a gross density of 8 units per acre,which is consistent with the desired density of 8 to 12 units per acre in MHDR designated areas. The plat is proposed to develop in one(1) phase. The Applicant plans to re-subdivide the western half of the property(i.e. Lot 76) in the future and will likely develop that area with more SFR attached&detached units similar to those in this development; however,they're unsure at this time of the layout or lot sizes for that area. All the proposed units will have alley-access from local &collector streets abutting the site and will front on adjacent streets or internal common mews—address signage is required to be provided at the alley entrances off the adjacent streets for homes that don't have frontage on a street. Direct lot access via E. Lake Hazel Rd., an arterial street, is prohibited.A traffic study was not required by ACHD. Lake Hazel Rd. is currently being widened to 5-lanes from SH-69/Meridian Rd.to Locust Grove Rd. A 25'wide landscaped street buffer is required to be provided along E. Lake Hazel Rd., an arterial street, and 20'wide landscaped street buffers are required along S.Apex Ave. &S. Sublimity Ave., both collector streets.All street buffers are required to be installed with development of the subdivision. The proposed development is required to provide a minimum of 15%qualified open space&a minimum of two(2) points of site amenities. Based on the eastern 8.20-acre portion of the site proposed to develop at this time, a minimum of 1.23-acres of common open space is required that meets the minimum quality&qualified standards; a total of 2.27-acres is proposed consisting of linear open space; 50%of the landscape buffer along E. Lake Hazel Rd., an arterial street; 100%of the landscape buffer along S.Apex Ave., a collector street; and open grassy areas of at least 5,000 square feet in area. A minimum of;four(4) points of amenities are proposed consisting of an artificial turf multi-sport court in the central common mew area,which meets and exceeds the standard.This development will also have access to all other common areas&site amenities in the larger Apex/Pinnacle development. The western 7.94-acres(i.e. Lot 76) proposed to be re-subdivided in the future, is required to comply with the open space&site amenity standards in effect at the time of development. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed single-family attached &detached units as shown.The single-family attached units require design review approval. The DA requires all development to incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.The DA also requires the rear or sides of 2-story homes on lots that face Lake Hazel Rd. &S.Apex Ave.to incorporate articulation to break up monotonous wall planes and rooflines that are visible from the street. Written Testimony: Amanda McNutt, Brighton Development(Applicant's Representative)— In agreement with the staff report Staff Recommendation:Approval w/conditions Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2024-0041, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 7, 2024,with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2024- 0041, as presented during the hearing on November 7, 2024,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0041 to the hearing date of(insert continued hearing date here)for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s)for continuance) w IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Tone Fitness Studio (H-2024-0050) by Taylor Clausen, located at 3064 Milano Dr. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0050 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to operate an indoor recreation facility (Indoor Gym) In a suite from an existing 3,887 square foot multi-tenant building on 0.648 acre of land in the L-0 zoning district. 117 i PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: November 7, 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 5 PROJECT NAME: Tone Fitness Studio (H-2024-0050) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name kb 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,­, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 11/7/2024 Legend DATE: Project Location s TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Area of impact �= City Limits FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner Q Analysis 208-884-5533 � nnapoli@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Taylor Clausen SUBJECT: H-2024-0050 Tone Fitness Studio _ LOCATION: Located at 3064 W. Milano Drive in the s SW 1/4 of Section 26,TAN.,R.1W. �---- �-.��-�- I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Conditional Use Permit request to operate an indoor recreation facility(Indoor Gym)in a suite from an existing 3,887 square foot multi-tenant building on 0.648 acre of land in the L-O zoning district. B. Recommendation Staff. Approval with conditions. C. Decision Commission: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview 118 I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant - Proposed Land Use(s) Arts,Entertainment or Recreation Facility,Indoors. - Existing Zoning L-O(Limited Office) VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning L-O(Limited Office) Adopted FLUM Designation Office VII.A.3 Proposed FLUM Designation Office Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 7/30/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 8/28/2024 Site posting date 10/28/2024 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received Yes • Commission Action Required No • Access W.Milano Drive ITD Comments Received No Meridian Public Works Wastewater • Distance to Mainline Available at site • Impacts or Concerns No Meridian Public Works Water • Distance to Mainline Available at site • Impacts or Concerns No Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions for comments received or see public record: (httgs://weblink.meridiancity.or lWebLink/Browse.as x?id=365 722&dbid=O&Mpo=Meridian City) City of Meridian I Department Report 11. Community Metrics 119 1 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview This property is designated Office on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM). The subject site is among several office-zoned properties in the immediate area. The proposed use of an indoor recreation facility does not directly align with the desired uses within the Office designation but can be allowed through a conditional use permit. In conjunction with the surrounding offices,this use can provide additional neighborhood services. An indoor recreation facility is a conditional use in the L-O zoning. The proposed indoor recreation facility is required to comply with UDC 11-4-3-2. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History AZ-03-005 (Annexation),RZ-05-006(Rezone),DA Inst#103097612,FP- 05-046,MI-08-006(DA Mod#109061606)and A-2023-0165(CZC and DES) Acreage 0.648 B. History The property was annexed and zoned in 2003 to the R-8 zoning district. In 2005, a rezone application was approved to change the zoning to the current L-O zoning district. Consistent with this rezone, a final plat was approved for six(6)office lots as part of Verona Subdivision No. 3. The DA from 2008 is the relevant agreement for this site but did not have a concept plan for these lots. In lieu of a concept plan,the DA references specific limitations to the allowed commercial area and included a provision that a minimum of three(3) office buildings in this office development. This provision has been satisfied with the existing development of three(3)office buildings. In addition, specific elevations were included as part of the DA that the current proposal generally complies with. Staff notes, despite no Development Agreement Modification being required,the DA allows the subject property to develop with all permitted and conditional uses in the L-O district. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed use of an indoor recreation facility(indoor gym)is a conditional use in the L-O zoning. The L-O zoning and FLUM designation is meant to provide opportunities for low- impact business areas which typically includes professional offices,research and development, etc. This use adheres to Policy 3.07.02B,which promotes locating smaller scale,neighborhood serving commercial and offices in close proximity to residential for convenient access. While an indoor recreation facility can create a large impact on the area, this indoor recreation facility is more specialized allowing for only 12 clients at any one time. Additionally,there will be no outside activity. The proposed indoor recreation facility provides a unique neighbor serving use that can be an essential use for residents in the area. 2. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposal meets the dimensional standards for setbacks, landscape buffers,parking requirements, landscape requirements and maximum building height. Business hours of operation within the L-O District shall be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The applicant is proposing to operate the business within the following hours: 6:30 am — 7:30 pm. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 120 3. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): A.General standards. 1.All outdoor recreation areas and structures that are not fully enclosed shall maintain a minimum setback of one hundred(100)feet from any abutting residential districts. The playing areas of golf courses, including golf tees, fairways, and greens, are an exception to this standard.No outdoor recreation areas are proposed; all activities will take place within the building. 2.No outdoor event or activity center shall be located within fifty(50)feet of any property line and shall operate only between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.No outdoor events or activities are proposed. 3.Accessory uses including,but not limited to,retail, equipment rental,restaurant and drinking establishments,may be allowed if designed to serve patrons of the use only.Noted. 4.Outdoor speaker systems shall comply with section 11-3A-13, "outdoor speaker systems", of this title.No outdoor speakers are proposed. B.Additional standards for swimming pools. Any outdoor swimming pool shall be completely enclosed within a six-foot nonscalable fence that meets the requirements of the building code in accord with title 10, chapter 1, of this Code.Not applicable. C. Additional standards for outdoor stage or musical venue. Any use with a capacity of one hundred(100) seats or more or within one thousand(1,000)feet of a residence or a residential district shall be subject to approval of a conditional use permit.No outdoor stage or musical venue is proposed. D.[Outdoor lighting.] Outdoor lighting,including lighted fields, designed for the site shall comply with Section 11-3A-11, "outdoor lighting," of this title. These standards may be modified through the approval of a conditional use permit.Noted. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets This property does not have street frontage that would require a landscape buffer. The site has already been approved under permit A-2023-0165 and no additional improvements will be required. ii. Parking lot landscaping The site has already been approved under permit A-2023-0165 and no additional improvements will be required. iii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses The site has already been approved under permit A-2023-0165 and no additional improvements will be required. iv. Tree preservation The site has already been approved under permit A-2023-0165 and no additional improvements will be required. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 121 v. Storm integration The site has already been approved under permit A-2023-0165 and no additional improvements will be required. 2. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Nonresidential parking analysis A minimum of one(1) off-street parking space is required per 500 square feet(s.£) of gross floor area. Based on the 3,887-square-foot multi-tenant buildings, a minimum of 8 parking spaces are required.A total of 31 parking spaces are proposed, exceeding UDC standards. ii. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space must be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Bicycle parking is depicted on the plans submitted with this application that meet the requirements. 3. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): The subject building has already been approved under permit A-2023-0165 meeting the standards of the architectural standards manual. 4. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): No fencing is proposed with this application. However,there is a 6-foot closed vision fence on the north boundary separating the commercial from the neighboring residential. E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Access to the site was approved off of W.Milano Dr,a Collector Street via a private drive aisle shared by the commercial pad sites in Verona Subdivision No. 3. Cross access agreements are in place with the building to the west, south, and east. 2. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Due to previous development providing a lack of connection points to this site(internal),no pedestrian access is provided off of Milano. However,with the approval of this site,the applicant provided a stub to the property to the east which may grant the pedestrian connection required. F. Services Analysis 1. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-I S): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-15. 2. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. 3. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Both the Plan and the UDC establish policy and regulations for extending and connecting to City utilities. Goal 3.03.03G of the Plan mandates urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments,including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities. All utilities for the proposed development are required to be installed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-21. City of Meridian I Department Report 11I. Staff Analysis 122 IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the previous conditions of approval and terms of the existing Development Agreement and the conditions contained herein[AZ-03- 005,DA#103097612;RZ-05-006; FP-05-046;MI-08-006,DA Inst. # 109061606; H-2021- 00801;A-2023-0165. 2. The proposed project shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-2 for Art, Entertainment, or Indoor Recreation Facility. 3. The hours of operations shall be limited to 6:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m.per UDC 11-213-313. 4. Protect the existing landscaping on the site during construction,per UDC 11-3B-10. 5. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6 A time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-513-6F. 6. The applicant shall not be required to submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application to commence the proposed use on this site. Planning staff will review and approve the commencement of the use through the Tenant Improvement and/or Certificate of Occupancy submitted to the Community Development Department. All interior modifications(tenant improvements)associated with the use must receive all required permits and inspections from the Building Division of the Community Development Department prior to operation of the indoor recreation facility. V. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6E) The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The site meets all the dimensional and development regulations of the L-O zoning district for the proposed use. Therefore, Staff finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffinds the proposed use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan in that it will provide an indoor recreation use which is not the direct vision for the L-O zoning but is allowed through a CUP. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use with the conditions imposed, should be compatible with other uses in the general vicinity but may moderately change the character of the area due to the limited L-O zoning within the City. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 123 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Stafffinds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water,and sewer. Stafffinds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Stafffinds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Stafffinds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Stafffinds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: Not applicable. 10. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, Not applicable. 11. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. Not applicable. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit per the provisions included in Section IV in accord with the Findings in Section V. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action 124 , ' 1 1 , 1.4 CNINDN LA y■rr_r --x - .4�-.i - - - a C. - V rA Lu 11 V i �-^. - --f via y.� -- m MCMIL`LA'N t. ' '. •-3 fM _-�.416 1 ■ 1 -. . .. - so • . 1'rh i1NO '-'IRS!ei _ ' mill..111; 11.y♦ ,>I loll ENNIMIA a1:[:[[I11.� ...... $!:4[ ;�", ��I II■nut■■� ��ili I1 un■nwl ul■unmi loll _ .11[1.-+- iri nl =IIBII■1nl�a-i�iiiiii:ii ineiiiiiii■iigpi iijj � MIS -. . ��i nllllullt�>;.■1gwn.1 111 iw1■n411pn1 j -1 Ilt 11111�- .►I S. rallllllf �.I •Hatt- � m■ 11 r� �n nmml r`► p Ilw�°�■ u mi i F:1 i'.'.��' �uut,r � ■unia'p Q: il111f1-r V —1 ' � ! 'Iii1iH■.,1 .. ,.,►mI�-.. - . !mi111111 l■[ .,■i -- Q r---- O ::■Illlrl 1 reu Y 1■mn nq s�: iiu""' =um n- 111111 ■111 - Z i1rIG; 1'1 1111 "� ►►►■■1 Z !11I9,q AAlllli r�11111>�1;/III ■Iw+ll- e � ■eiir����/�. rnip 7�u H rlj�r -rn Mr NIIIII �-����-1[ r 6 11■, �ihi R IF 11■9 c.`_ _.��y rR] � t ��tq 11 iiii*�„ummnnm- ��__ -�fi� ��•�Jq� .;I � f!l!�i��Il ..uw.�uwlul,lnm,flu■ _ ::- r ^ ♦� illlf��-11' Ifn,u is►nn n■I,nw .\�Il Il r- - � �711 IIr� � /Ia+ / .Oir,\:■w�=11 ■. uu�1711i rr4�� ���r1 n��.UIn 1_ �;r y 1! Y ,:.�����[�■ un+n urr �7lI_= �ia��`�•■nla.'r-n•■ +ra,�+°- r 4�' '. ■af■ ■u■ .. i?nuq+ ,re9�- p'�M1R1la.�%an■IIl1,t�IIl11vIry��'•� unm iunwnu,.■.�.���. punr/�p11 nlnv��.r� �r� irk ww■:....,�::. a Ilel" -■lln 4 !wq tl r_-- ■� n nr�anum �r,1' ►yllfj 11 :.1■1 :�.: = - - '�Jnlnai���� I �iaan...•q►i ` _.aww �� . - CHINDENJ 1 Ilr r,11a a11Y111. ^�- • "'�=1iuu nl■ �_'''==r�= :••I m1;p := ? muu Nil maLnur �illlll ql �= " - 1p■■�I-1111 . ��: .■Iu....,r11.,r r • , •- - o :� ::' � 'iiinnur nnln e,`111 . �. 11111111111-11111114 ' _ ��. ' • annul:nmm� 'nlnANl' ii�-:::::errs q•; �ninum r■�r�'a� 1 31111!■u nin! � _ Iz ■l p1 ulnrn•■■ � --_-���Ikkil q■lI���: •nu■.nr���1•'" __�irul#nl■I�fA/qp� rra■■■nul ununni -rlkl kklr�:-^: 41!>�ruYni c ilulaua��riwl�lrinnu IYIIy�^O �l lit---••- Ioell 1�•••••-°llnlllnllF*♦ww. tr AI[I - �■OOnini•irllnl■■/M• r Ionia ary::CA ,4 7���nm : aa:�••+��w[n IuaHi:-�niir•1■ � �-nllrsus g,lll.■np\. \lI �i•'-= C-IAII Z.:�k k►f::�•_'q .l- ::- ��r �♦nl:'piu n ==�r1yn -lilt -Iilnnl-:- !lr1 --:krl '1111•A - I•..Pp �Il n\11111111 f11 i l IIIII�_ i ti11r I_c,uuul,m r �Jllllk IIkk1►: e■nark u O k1111■�^�:� li' noon!■ UIlr -• Ulnlunl►'7G 4�� ialK{�" .► ■ru un4 {tl I?liu.'a �•? i1111iri ♦sup unm- fapl■:■n■••_ � �nl.��nnua'♦:;u11 r-•p•-�uuum IIIl:::` flnli V~a allimploll rllr ,ti■ 1i- --r•nA#fl■ _ ' IIIII■.:: /OI nAt Illlf#■r� n■n� n,Illlllpa :: ■lulnnF III IIIgR nrrr•�?':nquul W C'.nnnn Ilnl ■rn IINr�::•lllilnll O 1111■1■1- 1111■1 c c l ua1::'iiiilllllll ml■ulllll. k nos�/dn 111111 � -_'�"- iAllY1► ■ip #i111 Iklll-='� C;1111�-�. Nll-�\11 lii�in u_ . 1■_ Imo■ • p - - • • i*uX7. Iii.�+h •nm lulu uuulr' 'uuu" r _ e 9143. plum-on nlll ', r-, llannr l a C •�\`��ll��f�p�11W - _MCMIL-L-AN' nlnn�•,11�Nnl 1111 I�IAlllnl _r"II-=r= =- ■In17111111■II/Ilr tlunll J:-==-- n{{# UIIII -ylllr na nil■■■ '� _ ,`._m_--.-• r :• 11111 unllr ml In{■�B nnuxalilrnl �Inn un -:nl 11717-=Illlllrl,lllllil Illrli-,\1 i , 1r 1A■■ ma nI11r r n....1O1A■nH nl/tll\�.- E�=�.:�:■� .. Hrl 1 w � umm�ue• I+r/I.� �9�F J 7Il III • �- I All�f►:•an nr-■fn-1•y uuli7rnhl4� r�a.�' - • - . r�q b� a•4'. '.�:�- n:'. Ilriln4+► - 'ry1 :-hy�Qi rC :: �� -�:.iiil G'.i■ urr �' !♦Iu. ! '► lunnl : ■�inmu, nyau u■:� 'n nm �� 1 unllri i/ A■il _ .l■ nbf� W I 1 /Q l Ill arh ors nu pnn -nlu■:n � - n-:iiiiiiin.�tii,�L�l�,aii� ��-_-.'scl�►�. ■■ :-;r:=:: � r!. rl{nr1 r �CI■.u-� _ =_n nnl Ir.: ♦ ♦In111 Ilrr- N __- '•' • ���_� i: .+1 •�� �j �r{f� ;; Fes�.. - CHI�NDEN ,+ e'er riuunnf olio/ry n nN■-nnul, � � " - -- .-_- I•• r is a ei:g4 t.\\f1 � ��r nu■:nuns� 'aln,ll meui .. a,y� "'.� �u■num•,wr � r all ■i��r� • '• �• kkir nI1i119:�- _ ,.I.r■■.n:' .• a x�ssufna�i srll:. ........... �- ��-p: --`^ ,1.1! c iiullul■If�igli Diu �:•rrr•--ru umnnui rlkk kkln��:: + = nnnna Z • ��l III��:: ::•' •fl Flr -{nanuni�•�•Illnl■■■ �C■■f111aIIII■rillnl■fi�\ • r�•■1 :�-.luu uui:r' - as:p■alnul■ p uullnu■u nmPf n1I • --nrII 1111r� -- 1##1l�la r w alrllla n :SIIIPIII�■■lrlllll l•ii■ - ��p p-l■III lilt is 1�*-•rr111A U �-"-"ru■a■ a inn II1!!-� Kal■nl r' � i i.1 ♦A+PM�ulllnl --ram {{f IIIIk 11k11►=Iuuln Ilmllllll Ii■■ 1r ia>, -+1lunl# �r� 111111f1:-.=� Pl# 1uu11AA r�+Iu1n nI1rI mI nn► n unu� polo UInu1111►�'i y [Inp an[Ila A \lnnlrq• {I rll � `���nnln-p numlu l+r�Cin -_unto:C: uu r ��•-' s:y'y��. 1[kk-p n■ �IRr f nrnrl�:�IIII fqA' 1-�= � � nil■�■ 7-ly�rb y mrnlu�- ins :rJ IIII�...+�: � ylnn�i•��,7rr11■ ''\! RA--:: ill■-A - •. n1Il::_�n 1. [I I] min. nul.��./ ■::::- Hu op !!!II/-..:,iiiiii f I���Il INIr■.�-�� llrl��--'lllifn[■ ■•f■[ll■ �: ��.' ■knuurn■m■lul�itll,i9lklll� nrnr�::lnnull ■ nrrr�n. =annnry I nrl - Y. :•Illi uul gwurkklf !� nrrr�=-•uuum' II►�lim ant 0 c mono-l Illln V 3�� ■IIs-�Ii !.A >•un:'-anllllm� ruAllr■nnrs ElllnnYnnnryii uun�►,ii nnlallb ulll1l1r1 =;uN n--\t�t %/Illlllllln\I: '�uqi 11 nlir� ♦ u 1 Q,t _ «I[� ii ►� a��i _�� J � ;�:llr I...rS �w' =__z' � I 11■wlSf �_r>±r,Y \+��11[[ :r11 11,1, c ill■t •��� lino is !_menu a��ingnuri -MCMp.ILLAN-' ■-- iiiiiiiriri ...-�-_Iq-i_�ylllllll �=__�u^tin mnn muuRir _ ii_ �yiiililllllii�Iil= YAllll Ilrll -;■ mlPl�no1 = _'-'__'_zr �iuuam p e a+ pal i,.r'• ::��= :. - �^{lunll y �ill1 I I i �t • - `fir IIf■_ _�y1111_a___ • Ifllll -- 111 W N 1' S'�, :�:����:-. ■■!■.■ IO.I----s�ICE -T- n■r[n If�1'll'�e�ro.t[:I:.:or'��';u:, :In. �,�Rl��i� m u 4R•nnr i mm�r- r A u riiiij'+R•Almn lnmumie �li�r- .u.0�n■uu1.1 mu au■+- yj l\' �If #■,-_-Kull -Iirnu E:rnu ar.nm:a'an usliT nrij��� py fI n��/I/1 f�� ♦rIlln �~ l +! ' �-` llf�0 ��' :uI//l1a l yl ! r�♦ ♦ a+S:•• u`.p'..:--� -+ae�. Si p A ♦ -.. nos::� Ilri rl►, g r Ur Iy :.::ua■ril.: nr�„�,.- rL� � •Sku.-�/!lua�1��iuiiulpl�i/�ruil�r:� � '•'•` rrenl'.:o ua w� I In �11�IIIII■'ay !� nrnl��nnnun nlyau lab Z � �� II�il/IIIIry It ufs n l m r:.niani n mlm - YJ nl.�iiiilriii=�tiu■�nkll/�V��:;1:.•�� :nu._":._ . ail= nn-- • f■:�. mnnnTu=_ � Il�appuunaaafii r �trl/lN�s�j yi'1: :_�e::-•l-'-' _,Inuq�-_=_ kly \nnnnl!/ir/r��iniir�I1• -,•+J■1 -=:me�i�l' B. Service Accessibility Report Overall Scare: 31 39th Percentile Location In City Limits GREEN Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplain or > 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time 5-9 min. YELLOW Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Not within 114 of current or future transit route RED Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets GREEN plan) matches existing (# of lanes) School Walking Proximity From 1/2 to 1 mile walking YELLOW Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Either a Regional Park within 1 mile OR a Community ParkWalkability Park within 1/2 mile OR Neighborhood Parkwith;•• GREEN 1/4 mile walking City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 127 C. Site Plan(date: 12/20/2023) %Chmalis F1 0 BUILDING 2 (FUTURE) BEN A BUILDING I RIIIII P07. Ed NOTAPAAI AS1.00 City of Meridian Department Report V11. Exhibits F128] D. Landscape Plan (date: 12/20/2023) I �; `i �m `..�', • sue •�___- y p :g — _ -w - WNW n i � ® ca��a��. ,. ... 'tea"' -""�.��• '��i�s�ss`�^�-� g L_ . .._L._ —_—' -"YL— LRNOSCAPE PLAN �� '• �•: :' "75. ti7i"St d'11Y.`"' �nj�,l��b� .~'� •air aae"+��- K km '�•�.�:•� -fix -_.��_�t - _ ram ,25= City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 129 E. Building Elevations(date: 10/26/2023) Chrysalis . .„_ - o I •�M .-a::ram,�.,. i O ez is City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 130 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Black Cat East (H-2024-0047) by Sawtooth Development, located at 935 S. Black Cat Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0047 A. Request: Annexation of 3.62 acres of land with the I-L zoning district to allow industrial development. B. Request: Modified Development Agreement to include this property in the development agreement for Black Cat Industrial (H-2021-0064). 131 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: November 7, 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 6 { PROJECT NAME: Black Cat East (H-2024-0047) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name { 1 2 i a 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 11/7/2024 legend - DATE: Project Location _ TO: Planning&Zoning Commission I..Area of impact V= City Limits FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner O Analysis 208-884-5533 nnapoli@meridiancity.org ___- __-` APPLICANT: Brandon Swanson ------ SUBJECT: H-2024-0047 - Black Cat East LOCATION: Located at 935 S.Black Cat Road in the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 16,T.3N., R.1 W. 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Annexation of 3.62 acres of land with the I-L zoning district to construct an approximately 74,365 square foot industrial building. This application also includes a modification to the development agreement to include this property in the development agreement for Black Cat Industrial(H-2021-0064). B. Recommendation Staff: Approval Commission Recommendation: Pending. C. Decision Select: Pending. City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview 132 COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Residential in Ada County - Proposed Land Use(s) Industrial - Existing/Proposed Zoning RUT Ada County Zoning/I-L(Light Industrial) V.A.2 II. Future Land Use Designation Mixed Employment V.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 7/25/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 7/18/2024 Site posting date 10/28/2024 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District III.D • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access W. Grand Mogul Way and N.Black Cat Road(Collector - and Arterial roads) • Traffic Level of Service Better than E - ITD Comments Received Yes Meridian Public Works Wastewater • Distance to Mainline Stubbed to site • Impacts or Concerns No Meridian Public Works Water • Distance to Mainline Stubbed to site • Impacts or Concerns No Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions or the public record at Public Record for agency comments received on this application. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 133 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The subject property is within the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP) and designated as Mixed Employment on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM). This designation is described by the TMISAP as an area to encourage a diversity of compatible land uses that may include a mixture of office,research and specialized employment areas, light industrial including manufacturing and assembly, and other miscellaneous uses. Mixed Employment areas should provide a variety of flexible sites for small,local or start-up businesses, as well as sites for large national or regional enterprises. Mixed density employment will accommodate a wide variety of employers and serve as a primary gateway to Meridian and Meridian's prosperity. In the Mixed Employment FLUM designation,the preferred zoning is M-E,however other zones may be appropriate when/if it is determined the requesting zone aligns with the vision of the plan and integrates with surrounding properties. The applicant is requesting to annex this property with the I-L zoning district. The reason for their request for this zone is to integrate the proposed development with the existing Black Cat Industrial development that is currently underway, which is also zoned I-L. Staff finds I-L zoning is appropriate for this property based on the development occurring in the area. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History H-2021-0064 AZ;DA Inst#2022-082504 Acreage 3.1 acres B. History and Process This property was part of the initial application for Black Cat Industrial(H-2021-0064),but it was not annexed at that time. The applicant is now seeking annexation to integrate this property into the surrounding development and align it with broader planning efforts in the area. While I-L is not the preferred zone in the Mixed-Employment designation,the City Council previously approved a request for this zone in the surrounding development. Due to this,the applicant requests the same exceptions granted by the City Council in the previous application to ensure cohesive and consistent development. The development agreement stipulates that certain road improvements are required when specific square footage thresholds are met. Currently,the site has 559,295 square feet of industrial space under development, and this application will bring the total to over 600,000 square feet once constructed. When the total exceeds 960,000 square feet,the following improvements shall be completed prior to 1,500,000 square feet being reached per the DA and ACHD recommendations: Black Cat Road will be widened to five lanes between Grand Mogul Drive and Franklin;the intersection of Black Cat and Franklin must be upgraded; and the intersection of McDermott and Franklin will need to be improved with a two-way left turn lane unless Franklin has already been widened to five lanes. Note: City Council previously found that the Center met the goals of the TMISAP. The inclusion of the Property within the Center's boundaries is a continuation of that approval and allows the Property to be developed in accord with the larger industrial business complex. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 134 C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The applicant seeks to annex and zone the property as Light Industrial(I-L),which allows for a variety of uses. The narrative states the Black Cat Business Center would provide in- demand manufacturing,heavier office build-out, flex industrial and accessory retail, warehousing and distributing facilities in this region. Currently,the existing Development Agreement limits certain activities, specifically prohibiting"storage facility, self-service"and vehicle impound sales and repair unless conducted entirely indoors. This restriction aims to support industrial users and job creation. The property will remain subject to the same Development Agreement provisions,along with additional requirements as specified in Section III. According to the concept plan,the predominant use appears to be warehousing and distribution,which is consistent with the surrounding area and aligns with the City Council's previous approval. Given this consistency, staff recommends that this parcel be developed in accordance with that approval to ensure an integrated approach. 2. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The I-L zoning district requires a 35' street setback,20' landscape buffer along collector streets, 25' wide buffer along arterial streets, and allows height up to 50'. The concept plan and elevations submitted appear to meet these requirements. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets A 20-foot wide landscape buffer is required adjacent to collector streets (W. Grand Mogul Drive), and a 25-foot wide buffer required adjacent to arterial streets(S. Black Cat Rd). These buffers shall be landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-7C. Landscaping requirements will be analyzed with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance. ii. Parking lot landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all parking areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-8. The requirements include 5 ft.perimeter adjacent to streets and islands of at least 50 sq. ft. per every 12 parking spaces. These requirements will be analyzed with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance. iii. Tree preservation A Tree Mitigation Plan should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance detailing all existing trees and methods of mitigation outlined by the City Arborist before any trees are to be removed as set forth in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5. iv. Storm integration Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. Drainage swales should not be within the landscape setbacks along S. Black Cat Road. v. Pathway landscaping It appears that 5 feet of landscaping is provided on both sides of the proposed pathways. However,these requirements will be analyzed with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance. 2. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Nonresidential parking analysis City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 135 UDC 11-3C-6 requires one space for every two thousand(2,000) sq. ft. of gross floor area in industrial districts. The applicant is proposing 69 parking spaces on the concept plan which exceeds the 37 spaces that are required with the building(74,365 square feet). ii. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space must be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C.Bicycle parking is not depicted and the plans shall be revised to incorporate the location of the bicycle parking with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance submittal that meet these requirements. The applicant has agreed to include bicycle parking with future submittals. 3. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Goals 5.01.02C and 2.09.03A of the comprehensive plan promote area beautification and community identity through heightened design standards providing distinct and engaging identities. In response,the developer is proposing a large one-story industrial building(with higher ceilings and upper windows to appear as two-story)comprised of tilt-up concrete,moderate to large setbacks from the street,and frontages below the required 30%fenestration requirement along public streets as mentioned in the ASM. Primary entrances are oriented inward toward the parking lots rather than toward the street(N. Black Cat Road). The applicant's narrative states that due to security and visibility concerns, lack of access to directly to Black Cat Road,and frontage parking being discouraged, the light industrial use of the buildings does not support windows across the entire frontage.As an alternative,they propose enhanced glazing at corner entry elements as shown in the renderings. The Architectural Standards Manual requires modulation in the surface plane at intervals of no less than 50 feet. It also requires at least two pedestrian-scale architectural features and physical distinctions to anchor the building, along with a minimum of two different field materials and one accent material. The DA mandates adherence to the TMISAP design guidelines and the ASM. Since the ASM sets a more stringent requirement of 30% fenestration compared to the 20% specified by the TMISAP, compliance with the ASM(30% fenestration) is necessary. However,the applicant may request a design standards exception during the review process to potentially reduce the fenestration to 20%in accordance with the TMISAP. Given the building's prominent location at the corner of Black Cat and 1-84,the applicant shall increase the fenestration to meet the 30%requirement or apply for a design standard exception. This adjustment should be evident on the northern section of the east-facing facade,which is visible before the overpass. Additionally, staff recommends adding landscaping at the base of the east fagade to create pedestrian-scale elements while helping break up the building's fagade. While staff believes the current proposal may struggle to meet all design requirements outlined in TMISAP for Mixed Employment—such as variations in building height,primary frontage orientation, and ground-floor transparency—the City Council previously determined that the Center met TMISAP goals. Including this Property within the Center's boundaries continues that approval and allows for its development in alignment with the larger industrial business complex. City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis 136 E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Goal 6.01.02B emphasizes reducing the number of access points onto arterial streets by utilizing strategies such as cross-access agreements, access management, and the creation of frontage and backage roads,while also improving connectivity between local and collector streets. Access is proposed from W. Grand Mogul Drive(a collector street)using an existing curb cut and private drive aisle leading to this property. The road infrastructure in the surrounding area is as follows: W. Franklin Road to the west of the subject property is presently 2 lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. S. Black Cat Road. is presently 2 lanes with no curb,gutter or sidewalk. The ACHD Capital Improvements Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP) shows the intersection of Franklin Road and McDermott Road to be constructed as a multi-lane roundabout sometime after 2027. Black Cat Road is listed to be widened to 5 lanes between W. Overland Road.to W. Franklin Road in 2036 to 2040. W. Franklin Road. is planned to be widened to 5 lanes between W. McDermott Rd and S.Black Cat Rd sometime after 2028. W. Franklin Road is eventually intended to connect to SH 16 by a signalized intersection. In 2022, a traffic impact study was completed with the previous application and is not required with this application. However,the TIS addressed concerns regarding traffic from this development and it was found that the infrastructure will be able to manage the 2.2 million square feet that will be developed within the broader project. This property was included in that scope. Since this approval,there has been a significant amount of development in the vicinity that is either being built or has been approved. This includes 378,360 square feet of commercial and industrial uses across Black Cat Road as a part of Farmstone(H-2023-0045),256 residential building lots to the northeast as a part of Avani Subdivision(H-2023-0049), 552 Dwelling units as a part of Vanguard Village, 330 single family lots and 240 apartments as a part of Braya Subdivision, and a large amount of commercial, industrial, and residential in the District at Ten Mile,which contribute impacts to the area roadways. These developments also have requirements and restrictions on development until certain road improvements are completed. Specific to this applicant,the development agreement specifies that certain road improvements are required once specific square footage thresholds are reached. Currently,the site features 559,295 square feet of industrial space under development,and this application will increase the total to over 600,000 square feet once constructed. When the total exceeds 960,000 square feet,the following improvements shall be completed prior to 1,500,000 square feet being reached per the DA and ACHD recommendations: Black Cat Road will be widened to five lanes between Grand Mogul Drive and Franklin; the intersection of Black Cat and Franklin must be upgraded; and the McDermott and Franklin intersection will need enhancements, including a two-way left turn lane,unless Franklin has already been widened to five lanes. 2. Multiuse Pathways and Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17) (UDC 11-3A-5): The previously approved multi-use pathway is located along W. Grand Mogul Drive. This application proposes an extension of the detached multi-use pathways along the collector road(W. Grand Mogul Drive). However,the applicant has informed staff that the 10-foot multi-use pathway has already been installed. Staff will require the pathway to be shown and dimensioned as 10-feet with submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance. The concept plan also includes a 5-foot detached sidewalk along S. Black Cat Road,which terminates in the middle of the parcel. ACHD has approved the construction of a 5-foot detached sidewalk, and staff supports this recommendation because a 5-foot detached sidewalk has already been City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 137 constructed on N. Black Cat north of this site.While the City usually mandates a 10-foot detached sidewalk along arterial roads,discussions with the applicant,ACHD, and the Parks Department have led staff to favor the 5-foot width in this case. Furthermore, staff recommends installing signage to alert pedestrians about the sidewalk's end. Additionally,the concept plan indicates detached sidewalks of an unspecified width paralleling the new collector street on the north portion of the site. There is no pedestrian connection from this sidewalk to the front entrances for any of the suites. The applicant shall provide a pedestrian connection point to the entrances of the suites. If the pedestrian walkway crosses vehicular driving surfaces, it is required to be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. F. Services Analysis 1. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided to each lot within the development as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. 2. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. 3. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required and are available to be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21 and Goals 3.03.03G& 3.03.03F.Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter, and sidewalks are required to be provided with development. lll. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, an addendum to the DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. A certificate of zoning compliance shall not be submitted until the amended DA and Ordinance is approved by City Council. The addendum to the DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The addendum to the DA shall,at minimum, incorporate the following provisions IF City Council determines annexation is in the best interest of the City: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the concept plan, landscape plan, and conceptual building elevations included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. b. The applicant shall comply with the design standards in the existing development agreement(Instrument#2022-082504)with the addition of the following provisions. • The northern half of the eastern fagade shall incorporate additional fenestration to meet an average of 30%of fenestration required in the Architectural Standards Manual or apply for a design standard exception to potentially reduce the fenestration requirement to 20%in accordance with the TMISAP. City of Meridian I Department Report III. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 138 • The east side of the building shall incorporate landscaping at the base of the building to provide pedestrian scale elements and break up the wall plane. Planning Division comments related to future application submittals: 1. Provide a pedestrian connection point to the entrances of the suites. If the pedestrian walkway crosses vehicular driving surfaces, it is required to be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete or bricks. 2. Signage shall be installed ahead of the pathway ending along N. Black Cat Road to warn pedestrians of the ending walkway. City of Meridian I Department Report III. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 139 B. Meridian Public Works Wastewater olstance to Sewer Awaila trle at Site 5ervirles ♦ Sewer Shed • Estimated Pr41eft See appl lc&on Sewer ERU's + WERF Declining Balance Project Consistent Yes with WW Master Plan/Facili Plan Impact s{concerns + See Publ Ic Works Slte Wbfic Conditions Water a Di sta rise to Water Water Avail able at Site Services a PressureZorre a Esti mated Projert See appl leatlon YVater ERUrS • waterautrlity Norke + Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan • IrnpadVConcerns None NON-PLAT CONDITIONS PUBIdC'4 WOK Ks DF_PARr.ietir Site Specific Conditions of Approval I.. if a Well a lucauyd on the site it must be nbanduned per regulatory nyuirements and prpof Of abandonment must br pro%-Watt to the City. 2, Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches, 3- Provide 20'Easements for mains_hydrant lalerafs and wafer wvices. Easements should extend up to the end of main+hydr:int/wftter metrr and l4'bcycmd it- s- No pernianent strtte=es(trees,bushes,buildinks, carports,trash receptacle walls,fences, infiltration trenches, light poles,et-C-)tobe built within the utility casement. General Condltians of Approval I- Applicant slfali coordirml.c Water and sewer main size and routing With tlrC Public Works Depanrnent- 2- P{r M*ri4ian Wily Code(MCC),Ow,npphoftnt shall be resprmsiblc to install sewer rvtd water mains to and through this devclapmcut. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastruclurc cnhancement per MCC 8-6-5. City of Meridian I Department Report III. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 140 C. Meridian Park's Department �WE Parks and Recreation Reviewer: Kim Warren/Pathways Project Manager Planner Assigned; Nick Napoli Projert Name: Black Cat East File No•:H-2024-b047—AZ,MBA Date: revised 10.31.2024 The fallowing will be required for developmentof the proposed project: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—PATHWAYS-REVISED 1. The project developer shall design and construct multi-use pathways consistent with the location and specifications set forth in the Meridian Pathways Master Plan Map and Master Pathways Plan Document Chapter-1). Any proposed adjustments to pathway alignment shall be coordinated through the Pathways Project Manager_ 1. Prior tofinaIapproval the applicant Shall dedicate a public access easement fora Rd ar far as iRl r_.and Mogkil r,P detached 10'wide sidewalks along both sides of W.Grand Mogul Dr_ Easements shall be a minimum of 1N wide(10'pathway+2'shoulder each side). Easement need only be dedicated for multi-use pathways(or portions of the pathway)that lie outside the publir ROW. Ilse stondrlyd City templrlte for public occess easement Submit all easements un irm through Citizen's Access Portal, 3. Construct multi-use pathways per paving section based on existing site conditions as recommended by project civil engineer in accord with UDC 11-3A-9 and 11-38-12. Prior to final approval the applicant's engineer shall provide written documentation that the pathway segment was constructed per the recommended specifications_ 4. The owner(or representative association)of the property affected by each public access easement shall have an ongoing obligation to maintain the multi-use pathway. 5. 5'high open vision fencingshall be installed between pathways and(live)water irrigation canals and laterals as detailed in the Meridian Pathways Master Plan,Chapter 3,page--5_ All other Bence details per UDC 11- 3A-7. 6. Project developer shall be responsible for obtaining license agreement and other permission(s)as required for constructing within irrigation district easements. 7. Should any discrepa"exist between these conditions of approval and the requirements of the irrigation district,the developer shall work with Pathways Project Manager to achieve a pathway design that meets both City and irrigation district objectives_City requirements as stated shall not(nor are they intended to) overr ide those of the irrigation d istrirt having j urisdiction ove r the project area. D. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) City of Meridian I Department Report III. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 141 ACHDA-xisP*cAnn, iu RresiQWrMlidnda rM,VKe-Prerssl ]im Hpn (�mmis_5igrrfir Kent GoMtharM,Commi"oner VA &W Owe McKinnwy.CommlWorrer Date:October 9,2024 To: Brandon Swanson,Sawtooth Development Elizabeth Koeckeritz,Givens Pursley Staff Contact:Sarn Standal,,Assistant Traffic Engineer Project Description: Black Cat East Rezone and Annexation Trip Generation_ This development is estimated to generate 330 vehicle trips per day, 33 vehicle trip per hour in the PM peak hour, based on the Institute of Transportation EngineersTrip Generation Manual,111h ion- Proposed Development Area Roadway Level of —NM Service ACHD Pr.., Meets • Performance M-9asuraw *.* 7T LOS Planning ■ improvements? Is Transit Available? Comments; The tables above list the existing conditions of the surround ing 1V, roadways without the proposed development as this application is for annexation connecting you to more FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: City of Meridian I Department Report IV. Findings 142 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Based on previous approvals, Staff finds the proposed development is consistent with the TMISAP designation of Mixed Employment and the proposed development will be a continuation of the Black Cat Industrial Business Complex. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed map amendment to I-L is not the preferred zoning in Mixed- Employment, however I-L is consistent with the current zoning in this area and the planned uses for the building support the purpose statement of the I-L zone. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; This application proposes to annex 3.62 acres ofproperty designated as an employment center with the I-L zoning district to allow a "modern industrial business"center with a concept plan that resembles a warehousing and distribution uses. Staff finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Staff finds the proposed annexation and zone of I-L to be in the best interest of the city due to City Councils previous approval for the larger surrounding development. This will allow the property to develop in accord with the larger industrial business complex. IV. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommend approval of the proposed annexation with the requirement of a Development Agreement. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report IV. Action 143 EXHIBITS A. Project Area Maps to Project Overview) 1. Aerial V. Legend Project Location Area of Impact l ` Analysis 2. Zoning Map Legend L_ Project k �: .OVERL--AND P"Area of .. ■11 - Analysis - FRANKL-INS o _ 'WE W - RR City of Meridian U w r� f Z F �1111�1Vr`ER�AND � -��iN■■■� ll�y� Departmentpo • � ` ° FRANKL-IN o o / - • - • �OYERLAND� �t .� ■F•■■■ • U 5 �T= All - - - FRANKL=IN �-`-- � �I9IItli�1_�:;`:■:':�. _ -- neon►��"'Fuumuinuuwnu % Ewa Ea i I Q 1 ■� -=:.•� III• ■. "� R fill V IIIIVtl±nrrmr+�, If nnrru= a`+IIII�■ �luua 91M11''u""afl= r W IEIIIIEIIII=_ i=ftlllllllll==�__` �1g,IYFIIIIIIIQ Ilillllltlll f� + E■■� 11 � \ � �L.11��■ �, OYERL--AND Y ■■■■� ll/`\ B. Subject Site Photos i City of Meridian Department Report V. Exhibits F146] City of Meridian Department Report V. Exhibits Fl 47 C. Service Accessibility Report Overall Score: 2 1 st Percentile Lccation Within 1,12 mile of City Limits YELLOW Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains � 500 ft. from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or > 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time > 9 min. RED Emergency Services Police Not enough data to report average response time RED Pathways Within 1/4 mile of future pathways YELLM-V Transit Not within 114 of current or future transit route RED Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets 0 Arterial Road Buildout Status plan) > existing (-# of lanes) & road IS NOT in 5 yr work RED plan School Walking Proximity From 1/2 to 1 mile walking YELL0Ikf V School Drivability Not within 2 miles driving of existing or future school RED Parklalkability No park within walking distance by parktype RED City of Meridian I Department Report V. Exhibits 148 D. Site Plan (date: 7/l/2024) -�- - VLMK s 0. Cob ind.dincll o I - TCoate PARK RJLDML rr [ -- SIIE rvw [ V City of Meridian Department Report V. Exhibits 149 E. Building Elevations(date: 7/l/2024) VLMK ® so to mm cm to cm cm T T T T T T T T W. N. N. W.IWO W W ON Imm WIN N 6 Y Y Y? IPY � w Y Y nrwnvs City of Meridian Department Report V. Exhibits 150 I F. Annexation Legal Description& Exhibit Map % - THE Page 1 of 1 LAND 6 R 0 U P J*11.2024 P(q)ect me.121102 EXHBrr A BLACK CAI RUAD—BUILDING L hNNLXArION I]ESCRIPTIUN A parcel of land located in the Northeast quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 16, 1owashlp 3 North,Range 1 West Base Mendian,Ada County,Idaho,being more particularly described as%llows: Commencing at the East Quarter Corner of Section lio of said rownship 3 North, Range 1 west,From which pant the Section Corner common to Sections 9,10,15 and 16 of said 1 ownship 3 North,Range 1 West bea rs south Oar 43'U!"West,a distance of 266ia35 feet distant), hence from said Last Quarter Comer,south 00'43'OP'14e611,a distance of 99.89 feet on the East line of said section 18 to the RUINI{M MGINNING; I hence continuing South 00'43'07"West.a distance of 454-M feet on said East line; Thence Marth 89'15'S3'West,a distance of 3alMfeetr Thence North OU'45'01'East a distance of 454.28 feet; Thence South 89' 18' 53" East, a distance of 341.44 feet on said Last line to the PLMNI UI DUNNING. I he a"e described parcel Contorts 3-62 acres more or less PRLPARLD BY: HIE LAND GROUP,INC. AID T JJ 7880 Al 1-11-2024 r James R.Washburn �F£V% P_1FA 402 E"s1 S4ore Drive.Suee 100.64191e.50110 M610 206AW.4041 thel"ndgmupirw urn City of Meridian I Department Report V. Exhibits 151 x E1µ sEC.16 H.q :i�ir d4' PI I I I I O 4 J I BALDING L PARCEL y 3.62 Aerast �I �_ - --� I I � 7WEIR53W 31F.ET � I J � 9 a 7880 1-11-2101 5.16 "&15 &2j SM 1KF 1�ze SE CM nit'B' 11 16Q 2L1a ml Sac:1'—1W >ai1°a z urra ur i r,av1� = E THE Building L WOLAND Black Cat Industrial a MISEAROUP Annexation Description City of Meridian I Department Report V. Exhibits 152 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation Alk f�� '� .-�.•�=. a :: ■■■■fir,...:, ys■�ss1t■�■ems '�+M1 _ ��M "s~ ; _ - F�ISOMER � �r.� � i#*�i�����■� rr�i�s � �i �; _OMNI - �����Mily ��■�rA�fFr �' iil I..M�• `il Ate]. ;F.:,if+•" �i DI - r LIdWIP 90_ r.Z � ■ w!;-maw _ - I ��• I+ 4 ' F '# _ ed mz lip 7. R MERIDIAN COMMERCE PARK Industrial sAWTOOTH I[-t L(I'�tlNl fiN(ll l' INITIAL PROPOSED SITE PLAN - a *' 4� ter, - i SM Originally included this 3.62parcel Applicant tied up 3 parcels from 3 It different owners lip :. . 40 rr F° 40 H f ; rp Vr r T , r - COMMERCEMERIDIAN COUNCIL APPROVED SITE PLAN W • Applicant lost control of 1 of the 3 ■ n� ��r ° ■■ ;; ;; I �� parcels — the 3.62 acre parcel was ■■ ■■ ■■ ■i ................ . ■�■ :: �: �� J■■■N removed • � ■ 'o E_ ® �. .; .. . ■ ■�_ - • Both Staff and Council stated they :: OWE would have preferred to have 3 ■■ �. ■■ ■_ :: ■■■ Included the 3rd parcel for ••••■■ continuity IN ■ ::� ■ ■ is ;�■■ ��; ■■ ■ ■■� ..■■ ■ is ■■C=' ■ ■�■■�; �■ m .�.. . •�■■ ■ Aw-,� ■■ is m MERIDIAN COMMERCE PARK PROPOSED SITE PLAN Z MORE .... ...... • W mom 0 IN Applicant was successful in JIM, purchasing the 3.62 acre Parcel MORE • Staff and Council initially wanted ■■ - ■* �■ ■ ■■ = this parcel included in the original Development Agreement o - :: :: w - ■ ■�. ■ �� mom No 0 so EL so MEN Oro ==now IME MINE awn am Dino on OWN IN 16 0 Mate 0i MERIDIAN COMMERCE PARK BUILDING L SITE PLAN , i - �■ ■■■ r • Project meets all requirements of the - - Development Code • Square Footage — 74,365sf ■■�,■_ n • Parking ;■■■ E� �R■ ■■■i • Required 37 ■■■� ��■� ;. • Proposed 147 = ra ■■■■ ONE - • Demisable down to 14,045sf e "u MINE Now ■N■w �? ■■■ ''�=: Ems ONE O■■i ■o■■ NEON LI_Ll ■ ■ R ■ a a ' Air MERIDIAN COMMERCE PARK PROPOSED C• • AA b. The applicant shall comply with the design standards in the existing development agreement (Instrument # 2022-082504) with the addition of the following provisions. • The northern half of the eastern fagade shall i I -ate addetieRal fenestFati^r t^ meet n eFa'=P Of 2OO of MEET THE fenestration required in the Architectural Standards Manual CALCULATED ON A LINEAR DIMENSION or apply for a design standard exception to potentially reduce the fenestration requirement to 20% in accordance with the TMISAR mom �in z njis=ai0i��iq FENNER ii - — rs L1l!1111##!! � ■■AMA ■ 1 ,*1v R� sic-, z�l;'is * rtr � �^�� ���—.r+ �� :� - +� lam_ �t-^4fi� � �,�� •"-���:::�� � _ - _ �: ����ir ��� qp a Ad Bog r j Ar we may' mom Nosh 'Polpmalp TTf f _ 12411 MERIDIAN COMMERCE PARK industr I al AWTOOTH I'L�LL01-Ni fiN(�ll l' Additional Slides FENESTRATION • FOOTAGE Existing Development Agreement Sec. C-2 ASM 2) Notwithstanding any provision in the TMISAP development guideline, development building facades fronting on and adjacent to the east and west collector road a. Average. windows/doors (Grand Mogul Rd) running through the middle of the site, along Interstate- b. and the northern boundary of the site shall be required to have an ' ' clarificationaverage of 15% of the linear dimension of the frontage in windows and materials to designate d oo rways. square footage. The only reference to measurement is "linear" in the A. 3-33 c. Based on buildings approved • built footage"adopted, it appears "linear the accepted FENESTRATION • • • Building Length 5501f 30% Min. Fenestration 1651f Clerestory Windows (8*12') 961f Doors (4*3' + 2*4') 201f Canopies (2*25') 501f Total opening LF 1661f 12 11 10 9 8 Er- y7 LP 6 5 2 1 irx Tow QFw)Y"po Manta wa M Fa�a sear nMMS h� $EE Ris7Ri'Lill TY n" �l 12'0' 12-0' 12 0' 12.C., 12-0' 17-0' �6tiY o.e4 fNFi F; ._..._.... ._..._.m_____________ _______ _______________ .,... ...... _ _ 5�.. .. ..................�......�...�...�...�..�...�.:._ -:}� - __ - - __ __ _ __.��.: .:. ..: .:::.. ..: .:.:..::.:::.....::...........:.::..:..: :. ...��:. :. :..��:. :.. .:. :. :.. .:. :...-.: ::. ..��.:��:.��..��:��.. .-.::::....::.: :..:..:�.:........�.............� �.. .�...�..�...� SEE Cam[ �PLiM RDA 1.01ES &PAh6VE1.kM4AT =7a MAIC11=L71LQ 11GN�RDW EAST ELEVATION A fi FENESTRATION • • • DIMENSION Building Length 550' Building Height 40' Fagade SF 221000sf 30% Min. Fenestration 6,600sf V it 111 19 � F B i 5 4 3 2 1 ow I v ir.r ��x� rw DMAT M — ;Q two QD Fig Ril�. ..... -.. Q MIi+WIiAS1O70 i�w�(r 6.A�GnI {9R�11 T4 Y4+Q� EAST ELEVATION Requires 12' tall glazing across entire 550' fagade PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TMISAP STREET SECTION r- 1 rl GrandMogul • • Collector Section . E 3rw .11l1 3- �t�14� CURRENT IMPROVED STREET SECTION SOUTH SIDE NORTH SIDE I 1 44'PRQRGSE1)ROff GF•WAY I I WACHP SKWALK Alit a sniGATION EA,TryAIy� 18'ACH6GIOEWALKAND Pl19JCVfuA'EASEi1ENi gWJW-TIMEASEMErTYd B BIRIGATION EASEIAENT Z PUBLIC UTILfTYEASEMEHT g66ACKTG BACK 2 NtlGhiIQN EASEMENT � I 1Q 1' 7 1T 1I 17 2 P 1Q �I r I 1 MuLRMSE PATHVIAY RANTER THRu TWO1vAYLT.TURN THRU RANTER MULTI-USE PATHWAY 4 — I I 1.75%tM25% LPRO IEG;:7 1.7E%--_0.25% I CONSTROGT 106FT MAILTHISIE I i cONsiR,ICI 10-FF MULTI-115E PATHWAY PER AGHO SUP E&M PATHWAY PER M]EI SUP SQ708 GOMPACTEO RATRE SWGRAOE SH ASPHALT,G,-B.U.50-IH LCQMPAGI®f10.7M1'E SLRGRADE gJEyERim CIAB&WAMER {17Y W✓<PG W20 PER GEOTECH REPORT PER A"SWP GP•7P7 4-IN OF 3'S'MNAIS GnUSK0 AGGREGATE BASE,TYRE 1 4-IN OF Y4'MMUS OWSHEO AGGREGATE BAM TYPE 1 HdN OF r MINUSIMGRUSHEO AGGREGATE BASE CONSTNCTFLILL•QEPiH ROAPWAYBASE SEGTIRR VINE V MIN.BEYOND BACK OF CURE 1 Grand Mogul Dr.-3 Lane Collector-Typical Section Scale wrs COMMERCEMERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT Prior to Occupancy o Install frontage improvements: TWLTL & turn ` -= lanes at access roads on Black Cat ,,,,,,, ACHD WIDEN FRANKLIN TO 5-LANES I o Construct portion of on-site collector 4 FRANKLIN/BLACK CAT w z Occupancy > 960KSF w . _ INTERSECTION Q IMPROVEMENT o Black Cat is widened to 5-lanes by developer or ACH D w z - � U� o Franklin/Black Cat Intersection Improvement �h ° °, ail' c; c� W a 011- m h o Construct portion of on-site collector =: �� o W q�tLL 4 _,0N.SITE COLLECTOR LL Occupancy > 1.5MSF TRAFFIC SIGNAL o Franklin is widened to 5-lanes by ACHD o Install traffic signal on Black Cat when warranted o Construct remainder of on-site collector R �` (including N-S collector) WHY THIS PROJECT NOW INDUSTRIAL SPACE IS NEEDED NOW o Less than 1% vacancy means new businesses cannot site here and existing businesses who want to expand are forced to relocate outside of Meridian o Project provides 2M SF, in range of sizes 17,000 to 350,000 SF JOBS ARE NEEDED NOW 0 78.5% of Meridian residents currently drive to Boise, Nampa or further for work o Project supports 2000 jobs, meeting Ten Mile Plan jobs goals h PROJECT CAN BE RESPONSIBLY PHASED - F � N PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL nklll1-Rd. Y4 Fr'arrklln Rd W Ffarrkhir `U 3a & 5a. Define Frontage for TMISAP design guidelines & Meridian Architectural Standards Manual q.i i' Nor '■ I ■■:: ■■:: ■ ■■:: .. ; on 110,21111111111111 on long PROPO ■ - f■7f:: iUILDI :: :i :: N � :: : oom FRONT ■■ - ., ■.■I[ ■■■■■■ ::■■� :■ ■i.fUl �! r ■■■YYi�J■.. i •: ■■ I ■■ ■■■iu F '*� Z a I � _ µ ._ -- ■■■ MERIDIAN COMMERCE PARK UPDATES IMPROVEMENTS ACHD FRANKLIN WIDENING o The Idaho Legislature allocated $36.5M to -- � :� helpACHD accelerate improvements to Hwy ` �� ` . �'"1=ranklin widening p y .ACHD Proposed Budget Includes: 16 connections w� - - x►> 2023 - $590k for Design to 2024 - $2.745M for ROW Acquisition a r — o ACHD has published their 2023/24 Proposed 4 � Budget; it includes —$5M for Design & ROW -= Franklin/McDermott Intersection ' - ° ACHD Proposed Budget Includes: 4 i � ose acquisition for: = 2023 453k for Design 2024 - $1.112M for ROW Acquisitions Franklin Widening nn • Franklin McDermott Intersection • https://achdidaho.org/Documents/Budget/2 0 023Bud et DraftBud et07272022. df o Construction is planned for 2028 o Timing aligns well with our project and the Hwy 16 scheduleI IL MERIDIAN COMMERCE PARK BUILDING L FLOOR PLAN r . r . La'%A L-a;j am Eu .. ...... irIii l=liri :�: ' i■ii�il=1 ii�i■i P16, ■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ FLOOROVERALL PLAN V IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Summerlin West (H-2024-0023) by Laren Bailey, Conger Group, located on the east side of S. Locust Grove Road, between E. Lake Hazel and E. Columbia Roads in the SW 1/4 of Section 5, Township 2N, Range 1E Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0023 A. Request: Annexation of 63.965 acres of land From the RUT zone in Ada County to the R-8 (medium density), 17.27 acres and R-15 (medium high-density) 46.69 acres. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 339 building lots and 28 common lots on 63.17 acres of land zoned R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. 153 i i i PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: November 7, 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 7 1 PROJECT NAME: Summerlin West (H-2024-0023) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,­, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 11/7/2024 Legend DATE: Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission :=_Area of impact �= City Limits FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner O Analysis 208-884-5533 -Iritter@meridiancity.org r 1 � APPLICANT: Laren Bailey, Conger Group -- '- e SUBJECT: H-2024-0023 Summerlin West Subdivision AZ,PP ° LOCATION: Located in the NW'/4 of the SW '/4 of Section 5, Township 2N, Range 1E, parcels: R5147110200, R5147110324, R5147110342 and S1405315235 I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary An annexation with zoning from RUT(Rural Urban Transition)to R-8 (medium density)and R-15 (medium-high density)and a preliminary plat application to allow for the development of a 367-lot subdivision consisting of 337 residential building lots and 28 common lots on 63.17-acres. B. Issues/Waivers • Kuna School District states they cannot serve the proposed development because the proposed plats in this zone are beyond district capacity. This proposed development will impact Silver Trail Elementary,Fremont Middle School,Kuna High School and Swan Falls High School zones which are already at or over capacity with the current enrollment. • Waiver for Block Face Length per UDC 11-6C-3F for E. Crimson Clover Drive exceeding the maximum requirement of 1,200 feet. • Waiver to keep the Rawson Canal open per UDC 11-3A-6. • Access management and potential impacts due to the close proximity of the private road (E. Cavalli Lane)to the proposed public road(Summerlin Drive). Staff feels the applicant and the adjacent property owner should coordinate to develop a shared access solution. C. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and preliminary plat per the conditions of approval included in Section IV in accord accordance with Findings in Section V. D. Decision City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview 154 II. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Rural Urban Transition(RUT) - Proposed Land Use(s) Single-Family Residential - Existing Zoning RUT VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning R-8 and R-15 Adopted FLUM Designation Medium Density Residential,Low Density Residential VII.A.3 Proposed FLUM Designation Medium Density Residential,Low Density Residential Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 5/28/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 5/23/2024 Site posting date 10/28/2024 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District IV.G • Comments Received Yes, Staff Report - • Commission Action Required No - • Access S.Locust Grove Road - • Traffic Level of Service E - ITD Comments Received Yes,Letter IV.H Meridian Public Works Wastewater IV.B • Distance to Mainline 900 ft from property line • Impacts or Concerns • Sewer not yet available to site.Closest available sewer is 900 ft from property line • Must provide to and through to R8315200020 Meridian Public Works Water IV.B • Distance to Mainline 890'from existing water main however Hadler Subdivision would bring it within 70'once constructed. • Impacts or Concerns • Engineer to verify if there is a well onsite.If a well is located on the site it must be abandoned per regulatory requirements and proof of abandonment must be provided to the City. • Developer of Rescue Ranch has discuss running a water main down E Cavalli Ln with the City.Work with the developer of Rescue Ranch on water mains location. The City will not allow parallel water lines. So either: A. The water line is constructed in E Cavalli Ln and you tie into it;or B. The main gets constructed in Summerlin Drive and you provide an easement and stub to the property boundary. - Only phase 1 as shown in the phasing plan can be constructed with a single connection to the City's existing water infrastructure.A second connection(looping)is required before additional Phases will be approved. - If a road to the south is required provide a water main stub to the southern boundary. - Main down Locust Grove needs to be 12". City of Meridian Department Report II. Community Metrics 155 School District(s) Kuna School District ' IVY • Capacity of Schools Silver Trail Elementary—At or over capacity - Fremont Middle School—At or over capacity Kuna High School—At or over capacity Swan Falls High School—At or over capacity • Number of Students Enrolled Silver Trail Elementary—At or over capacity - Fremont Middle School—At or over capacity Kuna High School—At or over capacity Swan Falls High School—At or over capacity Note: See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section and public record for all department/agency comments received. Summerlin West AZ,PP H-2024-0023 (copy this link into a separate browser). Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:IRS 147110200 Date Retrieved:2024/10/22 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: 325 1,268 Surrounding Area 56% Not city 1W 699 ® City Limits 989.4 ■ Not City Household Household& Population Growth ■ Households 02020 Population Change:116.2°I° Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family Multi-family is 0% Ap is ® Commercial Preliminary Plats (last 5-years) Conditional Use Permit(last 5-years) Proposed I I Proposed Pending I Pending Approved Approved 2000 4000 6000 0 10 20 30 .0 ■ Single-family ❑ Multi-family City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 156 2.00 500 Single-family y T 1.50 (AResidential Parcel Diversity a 1.00 ® c°� L 0 Parcel Count 0.50 0.67 0 42 m a *Average Acres 0.00 0'11 0 R-2 R-4 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 10.00 9.36 d �'J d- Density6.59 - 5.00 48� 0 2.42 . 1.49 o.00 Dwelling Units I Acre R-2 R-4 R-8 11-15 Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. Figure 2:ACHD Summary Metrics a Locust Grove Existing Lanes © Planned Lanes m Existing Level of Service Notable r Comments Q (Primary roadway impact) Programmed IFYP Programmed CIP Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. Figure 3: Service Impact Summary Service q ■ ■ > Ready Marginal Caution \`o� ���� �i\�e fan L°tea °fly p� �. Qa Q- Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 157 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview This property is designated Medium Density Residential and Low Density Residential on the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The medium density residential designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three (3) to eight(8) dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The low density residential designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three (3) dwelling units or less per acre. These areas often transition between existing rural residential and urban properties. Developments need to respect agricultural heritage and resources, recognize view sheds and open spaces, and maintain or improve the overall atmosphere of the area. The use of open spaces,parks, trails, and other appropriate means should enhance the character of the area. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The proposed density for the 17.274 acres of land for the R-8 zoning district equates to 2.95 du/ac and 6.12 du/ac for the 46.691 acres proposed for R-15 zoning. The applicant states the proposed project has an overall gross density of 5.37 du/ac, meeting the required density range listed above. Stafffinds the proposed preliminary plat and requested R-8 and R-15 zoning districts to be generally consistent with the Future Land Use Map designation for medium and low density residential. The R-15 zoning designation, which allows for reduced lot sizes down to 2,000 square feet, provides flexibility for developers to support a diversity and variety of housing types. This can create a dynamic, multi-generational community where residents can transition through different stages of life (known as aging in place) while remaining in the same neighborhood. This type of zoning in conjunction with other designations should be used to support a diverse housing mix that supports long-term residency and continuity within the community,promoting stability and a sense of place for residents throughout different stages of life. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.01.01 encourages diverse housing options suitable for various income levels, household sizes and lifestyle preferences. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.01.01 G states development should avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City. Therefore, staff recommends the applicant provide a mix of dwelling type such as single family attached or townhomes within Block 2 (lots 2-12), Block 3 (lots 2-20), and Block 4(lots 2-20) of the proposed development as supported by the Comprehensive Plan within the R-15 zoning district. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. To ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section IV. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within six(6) months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 158 Table 4: Pro*ect Overview Description Details History Laredo Estates Subdivision Lots 2 and 3 Phasing Plan 6 Phases Residential Units 336 Single-family detached Open Space 15%required/24.36%and 15.39 acres provided Amenities Swimming pool facility,playground,picnic gazebo,pathways,tot lot, plaza sitting area and dog parks Physical Features Rawson Canal Acreage 63.17 acres Lots 367 lots(337 residential,25 open space and 3 common driveways) Density 6.12 du/acre(R-15)2.95 du/acre(R-8)overall 5.37 du/acre B. History The property resides within Ada County and is zoned RUT. Parcels R5147110200,R5147110324 and R5147110342 were originally part of the Laredo Estates Subdivision Lots 2 and 3. Lot 3 was later subdivided into two lots. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): The current use of the property is agricultural with one(1) residential property existing. The existing structure will be removed and the existing well and septic system will need to be abandoned as required. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (Comp Plan 2.01.02C, Comp Plan 2.06.01 G, Comp Plan 2.06.02D, UDC 11-2): The applicant is proposing single-family detached homes which are listed as a principal permitted use in UDC Table 11-2A-2 for the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Staff is recommending the applicant provide a mix of dwelling types within the residential area such as single family attached, or townhomes as supported by the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose statement of the UDC within the R-15 zoning district. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.01.01 C encourages the applicants to maintain a range of residential land use designations that allow diverse lot sizes, housing types, and densities. To support this policy staff recommends the applicant provide additional housing options (i.e. townhomes, single family attached) in the development. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.01.01 G states development should avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.06.02D encourages a diversity of housing, recreation, and mobility options to attract and sustain the local workforce. The Comprehensive Plan states the location and balance of land uses and densities should efficient and sustainable; enhance community identity;support a multimodal transportation network;provide housing choices near jobs, schools, shops, and parks; minimize conflicts between incompatible uses; and integrate development with existing and planned infrastructure. The Comprehensive Plan was updated to support a diversity of housing types for all income groups. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The preliminary plat and future development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 and 11-2A-7 for the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 159 All proposed lots and public streets appear to meet UDC dimensional standards per the submitted preliminary plat. This includes minimum lot sizes of 2,000 -4,000 sq. ft. and required street frontages of at least forty(40)feet. The subdivision is proposed to develop in six(6)phases as depicted in Exhibit VII J,Figure 3. Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11- 6C-3. Although the R-8 zoning meets the requirements of three(3) or less dwelling units per acre, it does not meet the intent of the low density residential FLUM designation as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Low Density Residential allows for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. These areas often transition between existing rural residential and urban properties. Developments need to respect agricultural heritage and resources,recognize view sheds and open spaces, and maintain or improve the overall atmosphere of the area. The use of open spaces,parks, trails, and other appropriate means should enhance the character of the area. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. Staffs recommendation is to shift from an R-8 zoning designation to an R-2 or R-4 zoning with larger lot sizes (8,000-12,000 square feet) which aligns with the goal of creating a smoother transition between rural and urban properties. The emphasis on larger estate lots in the transition area serves several important purposes: • Preserving Rural Character:By opting for larger lots, the development can offer a buffer that respects the rural and agricultural heritage of the area, maintaining a sense of openness. • Recognizing Scenic View Sheds and Open Space:Larger lots allow for more open space, which can help preserve key views and create a less dense, more spacious environment. This approach is particularly valuable if the area has scenic or historic value that residents and the community wish to preserve. • Ensuring Compatibility: Transitioning with larger lots prevents a stark contrast between high-density urban properties and lower-density rural areas, helping to avoid potential issues with traffic, noise, and visual impacts for existing rural properties. • Enhancing Quality of Life:Maintaining open spaces and respecting the area's agricultural roots can contribute to a more cohesive community atmosphere, balancing growth with the preservation of the area's heritage. The recommendation supports a balanced growth approach that would be more sensitive to the area's unique character and appeal. Five(5)common driveways are proposed with this subdivision. The applicant has provided common drive exhibits which demonstrate no more than three(3)units are served whereas a maximum of 4 units are allowed. The common driveway meets the minimum width of twenty (20)feet and does not exceed the maximum length of one hundred and fifty(150)feet. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited,unless separated by a minimum five(5) foot wide landscaped buffer. D. Design Standards Analysis The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 and 11-2A-7 for the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. The proposed lots comply with the dimensional standards of the above-mentioned districts. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 160 Ada County Highway District(ACHD)is requiring the applicant to dedicate additional right-of- way to total 39-feet from the section line of Locust Grove Road abutting the site. The applicant may need to revise their site plan to reflect this requirement. 1. Existing Structure: The current use of the property is agricultural with one (1) residential property and several outbuildings existing. The structures will be removed and the existing well and septic system will be abandoned as required. City utilities are required to be extended to serve the proposed development. 2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan 2.02.00, Comp Plan 2.02.01B, UDC 11-3G): Based on the standards in UDC Table 11-3G-3, a minimum of 15% (or 12.05-acres) of qualified open space is required to be provided within the development. An open space exhibit was submitted as shown in Section J/71 G, that depicts 24.36% (or 15.39-acres) of open space that meets the required quality and qualified open space standards. Based on the standards in UDC 11-3G-4A, a minimum of thirteen (13) amenity points are required to be provided. The amenities proposed are a swimming pool facility,playground,pathways,pickle ball courts, soccer field, dog parks and several open space areas. All common open space areas are required to be landscaped with one deciduous shade tree for every 5,000 square feet of area and include a variety of trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover per UDC 11-3G-5B.3. The applicant needs to provide an amenity from the multi-modal group in order to meet the required standards. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.02.00 requires the applicant to plan for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.02.0IB requires the applicant to evaluate open space and amenity requirements for consistency with community needs and values. 3. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets UDC 11-2A-6 requires a twenty-five (25)foot wide buffer along arterial roads (S. Locust Grove) and a twenty(20)foot wide buffer is required along collector roads (Summerlin Drive prior to Delina Avenue and Barchetta Avenue). ii. Tree preservation Per UDC 11-3B-10,the applicant shall preserve existing trees four-inch caliper or greater from destruction during the development. Mitigation shall be required for all existing trees four-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of one hundred(100)percent replacement(Example: Two(2)ten-inch caliper trees removed may be mitigated with four 5-inch caliper trees, five(5)four-inch caliper trees, or seven(7)three-inch caliper trees). Deciduous specimen trees four-inch caliper or greater may count double towards total calipers lost,when planted at entryways,within common open space, and when used as focal elements in landscape design. The applicant shall add a mitigation section to the landscape plan for trees meeting the criteria above that are removed. iii. Storm integration Per UDC 11-3B-11,the applicant shall meet the intent to improve water quality and provide a natural, effective form of flood and water pollution control through the integration of vegetated,well designed stormwater filtration swales and other green City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 161 stormwater facilities into required landscape areas,where topography and hydrologic features allow if part of the development. Development will be required to meet UDC 11-3B-11 for stormwater integration. iv. Pathway landscaping Landscaping for pathways shall meet the requirements outlined in UDC 11-3B-12. The applicant is required to provide a landscape strip a minimum offive(5)feet wide shall along each side of the pathway. Designs are encouraged in which the width of the landscape strip varies to provide additional width to plant trees farther from the pathway,preventing root damage. The minimum width of the landscape strip shall be two (2)feet to allow for maintenance of the pathway. The landscape strips shall be planted with a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn, and/or other vegetative ground cover. The applicant is required to add pathway landscaping along the Rawson Canal. 4. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for each home based on the total number of bedrooms per unit as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-6. On-street parking is also available on the proposed streets. i. Residential parking analysis The proposal will be required to meet the standards for parking as set forth in UDC H- 3C-6. 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan 2.01.01 C,Architectural Standards Manual): Three(3) conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed subdivision as shown in Exhibit VITK. The applicant states the homes in the Summerlin West Subdivision will include 337 homes with a mix of different product types, two-story and single-story detached single-family homes. Buildings shall be designed with elevations that create interest through the use of broken planes, windows, and fenestrations that produce a rhythm of materials and patterns. Design review is not required for single-family detached structures. However, because the rear and/or sides of homes facing S. Locust Grove Road, S. Barchetta Avenue and the collector portion of Summerlin Drive will be highly visible, Staff recommends a DA provision requiring those elevations incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g.projections, recesses, step-backs,pop-outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from adjacent public streets. Single- story homes are exempt from this requirement. Design review is required for single-family attached and townhomes. Design review will have to meet the requirements outlined in the City's Architectural Standards Manual. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.01.01 C encourages the applicants to maintain a range of residential land use designations that allow diverse lot sizes, housing types, and densities. To support this policy staff recommends the applicant provide additional housing options (i.e. townhomes, single family attached) in the development. 6. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3A-7. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 162 7. Parkways (Comp Plan 3.07.01 C, UDC 11-3A-17): Per Comp Plan policy 3.07.01C appropriate landscaping,buffers, and noise mitigation with new development along transportation corridors(setback,vegetation,low walls,berms, etc.) is required. Per the UDC the minimum width of parkways planted with Class II trees shall be eight(8) feet. The width can be measured from the back of curb where there is no likely expansion of the street section within the right-of-way;the parkway width shall exclude the width of the sidewalk. Class 11 trees are the preferred parkway trees. The applicant is proposing a parkway along Summerlin Drive. E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan 6.01.02B, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Per UDC 11-3A-3,the intent of these standards is to improve safety by combining and/or limiting access points to collector and arterial streets and ensuring that motorists can safely enter all streets unless waived by City Council. Access to the property is proposed from Summerlin Drive via S. Locust Grove. Secondary access is proposed to be provided via a new north/south collector roadway (Barchetta Avenue) abutting the site's east property line. For Ada County Highway District not to limit the development to 1,000 trips per day or the final platting of 100 building lots until secondary access is provided, the applicant is proposing to construct an emergency access onto Locust Grove Road approximately 430 feet south of Summerlin Drive and in alignment with Ambervale Street. There is an approved stub street as part of the Hadler Subdivision located north of the site. There is an existingprivate road, Cavali Lane, separating this site and Hadler Subdivision that will be required to be closed at the intersection with Locust Grove when the parcels to the east being served by this roadway develop. To allow for the stub street that was approved as part of Hadler Subdivision to be extended in the future and allow for site circulation, the applicant was required to provide a stub street to the site's north property boundary line and in alignment with the stub street approved with Hadler Subdivision. Staff has concerns regarding access management and potential impacts due to the close proximity of the private road(E. Cavalli Lane) to the proposed public road(Summerlin Drive). Staff feels the applicant and the adjacent property owner should coordinate to develop a shared access solution.A shared access point could potentially reduce traffic congestion and simplify entry/exit points,particularly for larger developments and not leave fifty(50)feet of undeveloped land. See image below. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 163 I I I FUTURE RADLER SUBDIVISION E CA I I I E.GAVALLI LANE(PRIVATE) RESCUE RANCH IC BLOCK 12 1c ��+ SUBDIVISION E.SUMMERLIN DRIVE----- - IC ti I xromieouaP I 8 BLOCK w BLOCKS 4 2 m�E uvp aw u�iE 10 8C 7 6 i i 3 2 2 3 I MFMAX.RLXO6]E12 iC 6 3 07 �` INIPLATTED I I \ 4 RIR I 11 �_—__E.HILLSGATE STREET__—_� 7 12 i 8 3i `` 6 I 13 ( 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 8 S3 7 _ L� l BLOCK 2 _ G B K 7 [[i IC ac 11C 10 32 10 31C17 i6 ii 1AN30 .---- 12—E.PAelRYALE STREET—_—_—_ 13 28 i TOT LO7 �, ii rD The applicant needs to provide a stub street to parcel#R8315200030 to the south of the property. Per ACHD, other than access specifically approved with this application, direct access to Locust Grove is prohibited. 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): Multiuse pathways shall be constructed in accord with the city's comprehensive plan, the Meridian Pathways Master Plan, the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map and Roadways to Bikeways Master Plan. Detached ten (10)foot wide sidewalks (multiuse pathway)shall be provided along S. Recreation Avenue and Locust Grove Road frontages. 3. Pathways (Comp Plan 4.04.01A, UDC 11-3A-8): All pathways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8. Comprehensive Plan policy 4.04.01A ensure that new development and subdivisions connect to the pathway system. The Master pathway plan requires a 10 foot multi-use pathway along the north side of the Rawson Canal and the west side of Barchetta Avenue. The plat map does not appear to show a sidewalk along Locust Grove Road and only a five(5)foot sidewalk along Barchetta Avenue. The applicant needs to revise the preliminary plat and landscape plans to show the detached ten (10)foot wide sidewalks. 4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): All sidewalks constructed as part of this proposal are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. 5. Private Streets (UDC I1-3F-4): There are no private streets proposed for this development. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 164 6. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): i. Common driveways Per UDC 11-6C-3D, common driveways shall serve a maximum of four(4) dwelling units. In no case shall more than three(3)dwelling units be located on one(1) side of the driveway. The applicant is proposing five (5) common driveways that meet the dimensional requirements as outlined in the UDC. ii. Block face UDC 11-6C-3-regulates block lengths for residential subdivisions. Staff has reviewed the submitted plat for conformance with these regulations. The intent of this section of code is to ensure block lengths do not exceed 750 ft, although there is the allowance of an increase in block length to 1,000 feet if a pedestrian connection is provided. In no case shall a block face exceed one thousand two hundred(1,200)feet,unless waived by the City Council. It appears that several blocks exceed 750 feet, but the applicant has provided a pedestrian connection as allowed by UDC 11-6C-3. However, E. Crimson Clover Drive exceeds the maximum block length of 1,200 feet by 665 feet(1,865 feet). The applicant has requested a waiver from Council for exceeded block length. F. Services Analysis 1. Waterways (Comp Plan 4.05.OID, UDC 11-3A-6): Per UDC 11-3A-6, requires limiting the tiling and piping of natural waterways, including, but not limited to, ditches, canals, laterals, sloughs and drains where public safety is not a concern as well as improve,protect and incorporate creek corridors (Five Mile, Eight Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, South Slough and Jackson and Evan Drains) as an amenity in all residential, commercial and industrial designs. When piping and fencing is proposed, the standards outlined in UDC 11-3A-6B shall apply. Comprehensive Plan policy 4.05.O1D requires improving and protecting creeks and other natural waterways throughout commercial, industrial, and residential areas. The Ada County Highway District(ACHD)stated a bridge is required to be constructed on Barchetta Avenue over the Rawson Canal as it runs east and west along the site's southern property line. The cost of the construction for the bridge will be shared by the properties to the east once they develop.ACHD is requiring the applicant to provide a road trust deposit prior to the district signing the first final plat for'/ of the widening of the bridge on Locust Grove over the Rawson Canal and a road trust deposit for the crossing on Barchetta Avenue over the Rawson Canal to allow for construction of the bridge in the future. The applicant will need to request a Council waiver to keep the Rawson Canal open. 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(UDC 11-3B-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single- point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments by the City's adopted standards, specifications, and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 165 management practices as adopted by the City as outlined in UDC 11-3A-18. Storm drainage will be proposed with a future Certificate of Zoning Compliance application and shall be constructed to City and ACHD design criteria. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan 3.03.03G, UDC 11-3A-21): Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development. All utilities are available to the site. Water main,fire hydrant and water service require a twenty foot(20) wide easement that extends ten (10)feet past the end of main, hydrant, or water meter. No permanent structures, including trees are allowed inside the easement. Comprehensive Plan policy 3.03.03G require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks, water and sewer utilities. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 166 IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division I. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. A final plat will not be accepted until the Annexation ordinance and development agreement are approved by City Council. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum,incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan,phasing plan,and conceptual building elevations for the single-family dwellings included in Section IV and the provisions contained herein. b. The rear and/or sides of 2-story structures that face S. Locust Grove, S. Barchetta Avenue and Summerlin Drive prior to S. Steeple Avenue shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding, porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. 2. Provide a mix of dwelling type such as single family attached or townhomes within Block 2 (lots 2-12),Block 3 (lots 2-20), and Block 4(lots 2-20)of the proposed development as allowed by the Comprehensive Plan within the R-15 zoning district. 3. The Preliminary Plat included in Section VII, dated 10/10/24,is approved with the following revisions: a. All utility easements reflected on the utility plan shall be included on the final plat. b. All pathways and micropathways shall be within a separate common lot or easement as required per UDC 11-3A-8. c. Revise the plat map to shift to reflect R2 or R-4 zoning for lots 31-71,Block I and provide a legal description. Submit to the City fifteen(15) days prior to the City Council meeting. d. Provide a stub road from E. Summerlin Drive to parcel#R8315200030. e. Revise preliminary plat map to show the right-of-way dedication along S. Locust Grove Road. 4. The Landscape Plan included in Section VII, dated 5/28/24, shall be submitted for review and approval with the following revisions prior to final plat approval: a. Show the ten(10) foot wide detached sidewalks along the east side frontage of Locust Grove Road and the west side frontage of Barchetta Avenue. b. Add pathway landscaping along the south side of the Rawson Canal. c. Add shrubs/ornamental grasses/perennials to the pathway within Lot 1 C,Block 1 and Lot 11 C,Block 11. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 167 5. Provide an amenity from the multi-modal group in order to meet the required standards per UDC 11-3G-4. 6. The applicant shall comply with the open space exhibit approved as part of this plat application that depicts 24.36%(or 15.39-acres) of qualified open space and exceeds the required amenity points. 7. Prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer,the applicant shall submit a public access easement for the multi-use pathway along S. Locust Grove to the Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation or unless required by ACHD. 8. The applicant shall construct all proposed fencing and/or any fencing required by the UDC, consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-3A-6B, as applicable. 9. The development shall comply with standards and installation for landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5 and maintenance thereof as set forth in UDC 11-3B-13. 10. Pathway and adjoining fencings and landscaping shall be constructed consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7A7, 11-3A-8 and 11-313-12C. 11. The development shall comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to driveways,easements,blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. 12. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 13. All common driveways shall meet the requirements of 11-6C-2-D including a perpetual ingress/egress easement being filed with the Ada County Recorder,which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. 14. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed gathering barn and pool area prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design of the site and structures shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19;the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 15. A Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the single-family attached and townhomes. The design of the structures shall comply with the standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 16. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two(2)years to obtain City Engineer's signature on a final plat in accord with UDC 11-6B-7. 17. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of ACHD. 18. Staffs failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance. B. Meridian Public Works See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https:llweblink.meridiancit.og WWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=351919&dbid=0&redo=MeridianCit X City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 168 C. Meridian Park's Department See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https://weblink.meridiancity.orz/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=351919&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y D. Irrigation Districts 1. Boise Project Board of Control See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https://weblink.meridiancity.orzlWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=351919&dbid=0&repo=Meridia nCi E. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) hggs://weblink.meridianciV.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=351919&dbid=0&repo=Meridian Cit Y F. Kuna School District See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=351919&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y G. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=351919&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y H. Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=351919&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y I. Ada County Development Services See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=351919&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y V. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds annexation of the subject site with an R-8 and R-15 zoning designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Medium Density Residential and Low Density Residential FL UM designation for this property, if the Applicant complies with the provisions in Section IV. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 169 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the lot sizes and layout proposed will be consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that housing opportunities will be provided consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds that the map amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and The school district states they cannot serve the proposed development because the proposed plats in this zone are beyond district capacity. This proposed development will impact Silver Trail Elementary, Fremont Middle School, Kuna High School and Swan Falls High School zones which are already at or over capacity with the current enrollment. Unlike West Ada School District, the Kuna School District does not have a lot of options when it comes to busing students to different schools or redrawing the school boundaries. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City if the property is developed in accord with the provisions in Section IV. B. Preliminary Plat(UDC-613-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; Stafffinds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section IV. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. Sewer is approximately 900 feet from the property line and the property owner must provide sewer to and through parcel R8315200020. The water mainline is approximately 890 feet away from the property. The development of the Hadler Subdivision will bring the water main line within 70 feet of the property. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Stafffinds the proposed plat is in substantial conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's Capital Improvement Program. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Stafffinds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 170 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff finds the proposed development is not detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff finds the development is preserving the Rawsom Canal by keeping it open as a natural feature. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and preliminary plat per the conditions of approval included in Section IV in accord accordance with Findings in Section V. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action 171 ' 1 1 •. Locationct. .. Fall LAKE HAZEL _ Analysis 1-;�- • Legend MEN • � �r �%i1i11•i=�1 Project • • • �nnull�nl•' 1 111111g11-nm Area mpac Analysis RUT C-C L-AKE HAZEL , a o rr � 12u1 nll 1��•���J , COL-UMBRA ■ ;_� `� � � II�1 1■ ■ --- II„IIIIIrr ■ Ilnl�N�;••rpnri 111111� �e �^rd'iih�tihh'�I �■■ �- h 3. Future Land Use Legend i� Project Location Area of Impact q,, ® � } O Analysis r Med-High Density'':: 1 Civic, Residential Me�ium gpw Density Residential � r r . r r r B r e r Low Density ` o Residential ' D I I 4. Planned Development Map Legend ._ '_ ME ®® Project Location �® Area of Impact ®®99 C ®® T City Limits __ _ _ 1 HUI E — Planned Parcels ; t,LL oAnalysis r 1 1 Jf I 1 1 1 1 —I� e D � City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 173 5. Map Notes Nearby Recent Preliminary Plats(within last 5-years) H-2021-0020 H-2021-0062 H-2022-0036 Nearby Recent Conditional Use Permits(within last 5-years) H-2019-0123 H-2020-0009 H-2020-0057 H-2020-0127 H-2021-0087 H-2021-0086 H-2018-0043 H-2017-0129 H-2020-0056 H-2022-0036 H-2022-0064 H-2023-0047 H-2023-0050 H-2024-0014 B. Subject Site Photos e I •'•'�n��� _ Tom` y� AMW Air. h � M City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 174 C. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL RS147110200 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Scare: 8 2nd Percentile Location Within 1/2 mile of City Limits YELLOW Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains 500-2.000 ft. from parcel YELLObV Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or > 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 min. GREEN Emergency Services Police Not enough data to report average response time RED Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Not within 1/4 of current or future transit route L RED Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets Arterial Road Buildout Status plan) > existing (# of lanes) & road IS NOT in 5 yr work ED plan School Walking Proximity Not within 1 mile walking a ED School Drivability Not within 2 miles driving of existing or future school F,ED Either a Regional Park within 1 mile OR a Community ParkWalkability Parkwithin 1/2 mile OR a Neighborhood Parkwithin GREEN 1/4 mile walking City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 175 D. Annexation Legal Description& Exhibit Map A Description for Annexation Summed in Subdivision June 12,2024 All of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Laredo Estates Subdivision as filed in Book 59 of Plats at Pages 5500 and 5501, records of Ad a County, Idaho and unplatted portions of the Southwest 114 of Section 5,Township 7 North, Range 1 East, Boise-Meridian,Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as follows- Commencing at the Section corner common to Sections 5,B, 7 and 8,T.2N., R.1 E„ B.M.,from which the 114 corner common to said Sections 5 and 6 bears,North 00 04'42'West, 2655.92 feet;thence on the west boundary line of said Section 5, North OQ°04'42"West, 973.33 feet to the POINT OF Bt=GINN[N , thence continuing, North OO°O4'42"West 1,138.85 feet to the westerly prolongation of the southerly boundary line of Rescue Ranch Subdivision as filed in Book 106 of Plats at Pages 14734 through 14736, records of Ada County, Idaho; thence leWrrg sold west boundary line on said southerly boundary line and the westerly prolongation thereof the following seven(7)courses and distanaes- South 89°52'36"East,696.77 feet; South 68°53'16"East, 332.83 feet, South 31°38'd0"East, 154.12 feet; South 64034'41"East, 290.51 feat; South 48'18'53"East, 155.34 feet; North 00'04'42"west, 536.82 feet; South 89`52'36"East, 1,192.35 feet to the Southeast corner of said fescue Ranctti Subdivision; thence on the north-south centerline of said Section 5, South OO°OO'59"West, 1.081.82 feet to the Northeast corner of Tamarack Ridge Subdivision.as filed in Book 59 of Plats at Pages 5672 and 5673, records of Ada County, Idaho; thence leaving said north-south centerline on the northerly boundary line of said Tamarack Ridge Subdivision the following seven(7)courses and �� t4+Vp - distances: North 61 W'52'1Wast, 361.44 feet; � � �� 4WD South 82W31"West, 182.68 feet; ox North BV56'01"West, 362.91 feet; �y cpj: p� Me Page 1 of 2 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 176 314.02 feet on the we of a curve to the left having a radius of�67.40 feet, a central angle of 67'1703", and a long chord which bears South 7962527" West, 296.28 feet; South 45°4656"West, $29.67 feet; South 57°2+4'55"West, W,12 feet; South 67°2T'28"West, 176.39 feet to the Northwest corner of said Tamarack Midge Subdivision,coincident with the Northeast comer of Lot 4, dock I of said Laredo Estates Subdivision; thence learning the northerly boundary of said Tamarack midge Subdivision on the northerly boundary line of said Lot 4 and the westerly prolongation thereof the following three(3)courses and distances: North 87°28'39"West, 78.ODfee; N orth 59°2339"West,474.00 feet; North 51"21'39"West, 214.44 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, Containing E33.9135 acres, more or less. End of Description. L A A+4 � \1kCJEHSC/ 1177 O p F k * * 1oicCN�A Page 2 of 2 City of Meridian Departirient Report VII. Exhibits F177] ss � AD Amu - Z �f Anck Aa § S&9'S2'% r �SB9'52'313'E @ — ��% . ���£ ■ & # @ k . A ./ ¥ § § ` §. a % J ±61 Acre./§ w m / ® POW Of A Begonning k $ i) . Ridge Ar �2 a¥ 3C LB 10 j 2 I Line a We �\ \ | kTV& * ,, . ■¥� \ u SJI'36'40"E11 S.b & _ L2 »e "% 155 _- -- - . iA 5.7 5.8 Columbia R to 2 ,9 ,�2A L a 55w , ,2 5 21:7'28'w 17■,3, y 0 5 R «w MOD, rL 7 I§ 7 �L�7 7"% 2 4 � 0 1 Curve Tuble me a_ L"m Radius 0L.1t. Chord Berg CMM Lg a 2z A 6,fD S 2 , 2a Scale; 01002& kD 60 UhU! Df-u.i for _ IDAHO Annexatlon 22-_ SURVEY mmm ' bdfl - No, GROUP, L C AN &Lt. 2 — 3, Nk & L � Et— l am _gym �. k. _ a_ as _ 5. T- ee B W. _ �* m_ _ City of Mell*pI Department Report Vttxƒi! ,3 E. Preliminary Plat(date: 10/10/2024) all o �lill�li�11l1!!,llal�ll����19p9 ;���lpil� �lil i iEJill 1111'i R --------------------- 3 IF II r�. aM F f � 6.f. e 1I;i'i jlli jl�ll ipg5'I€i��s� i I pi�l^;"'�� 11�I iI H lil 9 i;1 lio Hal Ill, li it i'pISI �i �iy�l Hilin Ill l•11., ji II liial° ���I ��� C C '�il s .! 1 Ili lilii� i�11a9 .� of Ifiii ii i 4 a .I SUMM[RLIMSUBMISIDN � _ u•p� �c�w�uc 01 caeis�run rm� City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 179 F. Landscape Plan(date: 6/10/2024) 1 -- 9 - - - AM I - , ,7• -I a i - I I! i f� S U M M E R L I N SUBDIVISION �I o MAY]8,]011 JE�:':E'.EELTB 1. MERIDIAN, ID PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN -E ® r ' cam: . S U M M E R L I N SUBDIVISION I'a MER„DIAN, ID PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN ...,.., .n..,,.... ,-.:....:_ City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 180 �alllllllllllllllll��Oq 1111111111 � � a �111llllllllllld � � d III ON � Q Bill se 0� o� ao a� s0 as w � 0 � � aao � 1 11;j� � �11111�111 wr- � '. wwwwww�w�w� wa_wwl wwl H. Block Length `i -------._._._._._f WC--- a --------------- — — — — — — — — — —►�R— -------i I I 1 f Ig 1 .1 19 ---- 1 i � lam_ f ` " . e= .1 ! f l I � l I f I I F a a wucNTr.�ven. 1 y�E ror�e on�ww eum�ra� m 3umKRUM S{lYW mom aK na ""io anxrcw�.uc ril 15! 1� e�an un�mw�ar �1•:�-:e::s::sa:::, City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 182 I. Common Driveways _ F�RTri IL 8111iIImII N KHWJW a -•S- M1 l\\ M rw r - c, I I 1 � 1 I � � 9111.CYING I 17' T I _#-':: ORIENTATION I ' 1Y t7 ' 13 p3 O 3' ' ` LOC6K 5 L--------- ---J r 4 I I I ,F 29'- SULDING 117 L_ _J L— �•l:ta: ORIENTATION 1 L—___--___ ___J CRIVEWAY{TYP_ BIILdNG 1 77 ONENTAMN . 4. ----------- ----+ 1 BUILDING it ORIENTATION lg A�i fY? ;�2VY- 10 I 7Y �aT BUILDING ORIENTADDN '„ 10111124,�4 $i BACKUNE(TYP.] t �fIN P• ` +0 sa u 40 SCALE:1:40 SUhAMERIN SUBDIVISION D' ZY11.INNOVATONS ne�o ora�a �■ rm r�iu »uwr� � F�R�4N.OA16 sax wra rw sz i�im¢onns ■uaA�r�rn suu us[rr 4 GC,1�N YM DFfVEWAY EXHIBIT osc so-o- vi m c 9Q1YG !I OfY City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 83 FIRTH IL SUYIiIIIIIIIILIN UI - _ -- - - - - --E-SUMMERLIN DRIVE I I I I I BULLING OENTATION RI I I 2 Z S I ;, � 1 34 L----- ------------J BLOCK 1 I } I I } # I i } # ram---- - _� 8G I 7 INI j '7 m I I a I M + 1 I I I -4 1 1 4 I 1 1 I I I sunDwr-, 1 I I I I I I ORIENTATION i i -j L J L _ J r• r r _ 12' 1 Y7 -}- BUILDING ,J T•{ RIVEWAY 1 ORIENTATION � �-} 1 6NILL91alRTfiSTREFf I BUILDING I ORIENTATOR *~"L, r----a _ ------- .I r 1 ORIENTATION _ V �,t TR 5 L----- ---- ------� 7`RL�+1 SETBACK LINE FW.) 11 IO A U 40 fIN P UMMERIM SUBDIVISION COQCIVIL INNDVATIDNS rRBFl39 CJXAL{ L........... XG XC.X XG B IERVAN.LAWO . ° rwu m ar R DRNEYMY ElHI91T �� ocozo_ is m s¢r�n oun City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 184 I e FAkTH 4 * - ! I { v xT i� Q I '+ SETRACK LINE[TIP.] R, t + I " I BUILDING I 17 + f:,*f' dRENTATION � y L:_____,___ ___,_J r..r-. - .- "" . *i • °b r----------- ----1 i F.CRIMSON CLOVER DRIVE I 12 - - - - IIuIDING CWENTATION j 6RIVEWAY{TYP" &C rq 9ulDIN6 ORIENTATION a I I I L-,___::___- I I I I I T 7 I I 71 I I 72 I � ~� 9LII.QINC � I i � I -tr F_=- OREFIfATION I } I S I - ~ a I I 7~ a I t_______________aa__a_ _ -� I I I I 1 I I I j I 17 t I I } I k I 73+G I a I I j IRRIGATION POND � - -•fir;�-{" '• I �111!62 "y 50 'Y 3 di IA 21 4 6 40 Jr s SGW F:IAO SUMMERIN SUBDIVISION CIVI L IN N OVATI D N S Q ra rese on,u C Lerl xeee x¢ r�IL: »ou a�wa.y xWRIAMADAHO 'e DRP&YMY EMENr t,c�suo- rl vcilio ��orn City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 85 c64 lioeix; r-- --� r--- ---, r——————————— ———i v 12 3' 1 i i3 1 ` r BUILDING _ Y7- :_ ORIENTATION &L a 4 r___________ _ ___i a aw I m i cc o i i8 1 1s 1 I I I BUILOHG I x ORIENTATION I ' F -,Y r— — .-- 17 ' V ORNEWAY(T1lP. .s+ BUILDING 117 t._ -?".:':i ORIENTATION IF6 CLODUCROFT 3TRkIT L__________ ie -1 ~F BUILDING r 92 ORIENTATION + W W ' 19 I q ISRr BUILDING r 17 ORIENTATION M I • 5ETIJACK LINE(iYP. 7 � I I - _ )01)1124 0 0f Z 40 xo a au SUMMERIN SUBDIVISION IICIVIL INNOVATIONS y raoresa onA�e �ewc neew wo ay 1� s,c1•rtwa.q e C GR1YhN �Gx CFUVEWAr 00,191T iroo6G� Fr City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 86 :`4--------------- I 1 I I 12' 1 BUILDING Fi ; -Y �� 3 133M ORIENYAYKIM F I L --—------ BLOCK, # 9 # ; ; 1 9 # Ile 12 Y R ;;:21Y d I 1 1 G I BUILDING -t I 1 1 I M ORIENTATION 1 12 I r' i _i 20',• rt� __ BURUING - ; $ ORIENTATION + L_ — _ RIVEY4AY(TYP.J ECLOUDCROFirSTRIif IT 1 7 - 2R• BUILDING 1 „ ORIENTATION R 1 — .-•r : r- ------------- rF BUILDING _ 1 r, ORIENTATION Y SETBACK LINE(TYP.) I .i II Y 1 $ 1 DI SAZ e 1 R62 I ao 20 (1 41) S ME:I M a CIVIL INNOVATIDNS T� 1 � 'T ■R ZS DYaL{ L EM.HCIR XG pY,la; ]�011 Cii18q FAREMX 13AMtl� -.- F�CK jii ri Nii MSi�mY e — 4 uerana nw CANEWAVE)HIINT �� acc sum o1 ME mama City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 187 J. Phasing Plan _._._._----______— .g R_e____•--____ Li � M ......................................... JI _------__ ;�R y�g ..r.w on�ur.� euntiFmn -0 Ge @$UMMERLIM$UiGIYI$IpM J VA � aw. nm oxoawxrrx�v.n: 4' OV9IAL mug%V1 -L"--~--"�`�'•�'�• __� nar-ice.+ x..r.R.rw� a a E _.— City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 188 K. Building Elevations (date: 6/17/2024) Elevations Si LP "Wd 11A , City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits F 89 L. Open Space Amenities A. Large Central Park(Block 6, Lot 1)-This five` acre park will UUnLain the followirp,facilities= Pool Facil itV Two Pickleball Courts + Fenced Dog Park + Dog Waste Facility Playground Climbing Rock i Seating Benches Attractive Landscaping i Two large lawn areas r. Pedestrian Pathway Aw City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 1 90 B. Dog Parks(Block 2, Lot8)and jBlock 7, Lot 17) + Fenced Dog Park • Waste Station * Seating Areas • Attractive landscaping C. Pathways-The Surnrnerlin Neighbor hood will include the lul low inF, pedu Lr iari pathways: 1O'Wide Regional Pathway-1,682 LF -- R- D. Older open green areas- several other open spaces will have the fallowing amenities: r Shade structures Large open grass areas * Internal Pathways + Picnic Area + Attractive Landscaping City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 191 1 VIII. ADDITIONAL NOTES & DETAILS FOR STAFF REPORT MAPS,TABLES,AND CHARTS (link to Community Metrics) A. One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Notes This data is automatically derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically. Date retrieved notes generally reflect data acquired or processed within the last 30- days.Analysis is based on a one-mile radius from the centroid of the identified parcel. Parcel based data excludes certain properties and represents land as it exists now. Properties considered are only those with a total assessed value greater than 0(i.e. excludes most HOA area,transitional development, government,and quasi government facilities). The following values also constrain included property acreage to reduce outliers and non-conforming instances from distorting averages: R-2<5.0; R-4<2.0; R-8< 1.0; R-15 <0.5; R-40<0.25. Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types. Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. Some approved entitlements, and particularly older ones,may be constructed. Decennial population counts and household counts are based on the most recent Decennial Census. Current population and current household values are COMPASS estimates,usually for the year previous, and are based on traffic analysis zone boundaries(TAZ's). B. Mixed Use Analysis Notes This data is derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically. Data considered for analysis are only those areas overlapping the overall Mixed Use boundary area. Mixed Use areas across arterial roadways are distinct, separate, and not considered as they do not meet the mixed use principles in the Comprehensive Plan(e.g.pedestrian safety, transportation efficiency, etc.). Mixed Use parcel areas may be greater or smaller than the future land use area designation boundary due parcel size,configuration,right-of-way, and other factors. Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types. Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. C. Service Assessment Notes This data represents existing conditions derived from our enterprise application and GIS database, exported through dynamic reporting. The system references the most recent available data from various sources, including sewer main lines, sewer trunksheds, floodplain, fire service areas and response times,police crime reporting,pathway information,existing and planned transit, roadway improvements, school and park proximity, and other resources. The tool provides context for project review,using multiple indicators consistently. Data from similar topics may vary based on different levels of review. The overall score is based on weighted criteria(not a ranked order), and the percentile score compares the parcel to others in the city(higher is better). This tool was developed as a City Council priority and outcome of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. Scores,whether high or low, are just one data point and should not be the sole basis for decisions. City of Meridian I Department Report VIII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts 192 D. ACHD Roadway Infographic Notes The Ada County Highway District utilizes a number of planning and analysis tools to understand existing and future roadway conditions. • Existing Level of service(LOS).LOS indicator is a common metric to consider a driver's experience with a letter ranking from A to F.Letter A represents free flow conditions, and on the other end Level F represents forced flow with stop and go conditions. These conditions usually represent peak hour driver experience. ACHD considers Level D, stable flow,to be acceptable. The LOS does not represent conditions for bikes or pedestrians, nor indicate whether improvements: are possible; if there are acceptable tradeoffs; or if there is a reasonable cost-benefit. • Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP).The IFYWP marker(yes/no) indicates whether the specified roadway is listed in the next 5-years. This work may vary, from concept design to construction. • Capital Improvement Plan(CIP).The CIP marker(yes/no)indicates whether the specified roadway is programmed for improvement in the next 20-years. City of Meridian I Department Report VIII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts 193 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation F I SUMM R IN WEST I i MERIDIAN, IDAHO Vicinityand Annexation Map — _ rt rt . m ■ r 9 11 = gip • — IIII�i iIIILII �� � � Reveille 1111 � Illil� �� _ 1111� • -. * o Summerlin West # y \ • l i i � h J Rawson 11 u .- Ifg - . . - Comprehensive Plan W if r� � z SM E L 1? ; .L I It ; IBM 1111 If11111 111N� * "W- lk „- Summerlin Y ` Wh9dum Low DensAy a + ' # * ; 1, I J pnq I x r_s:LI I:ISIR.crina�; I � F- - 10I I�aralruwx 5 7 ] �'S i 7 i # 7# it 4 iS 14 iF 7d:lIC:M 21 bl:�Sk:Y6�Yd F I YJ .I I IF ILUM EYEA covt 9- — - -E I LOLPDG KYf#71ELLS �£ +wlr�l ,i14 I �I YL 10 I 17 V 19 ah t7 tY !S t4 T. S i 9 { 7 1 t 11 1] li 1 - *LW9.1 ' j R9P145 a I RK'°1 I tf Ls i, i �' JQ'a 71':4 iFl al j}} a¢ 71 74 m K FT ;* 3p? I FLAU- :.irEfTilEE7 F / I I f la 22 7L X•= -� F1 i 3 7 + } C 7 i S 7F ff 1'# 14 d} 19 5T F-1 ._ at Pic' ib 3 71 SOH IT 14.0.N 1} 23 F it r Y. 7F nrr I. E.AMERM-}T {G - 1F — � �• R_ 5} iOf LVf li 14 '�:�,�I — lL r ' #5 v m as } 4 isg 71 27 » ti +4 L R 41 —1 E _ - '7•+ ." R5 f 1l 1# �f ,r22 as C I 1L }4 IL di9,14 4 5 i µ i_ _14_ Ta n i s\ is 9'+{d:47 0 qp m rr 72 I d w IY m I - 3d ys Fi Y # i S { 7 9 t idll�s 12 i5 1� i� IC 12 -4 d 22 h 22 1 I 71 } ![ I ` — _ �. y 31 � `4 Wqi+Vlr�• I 4 ,M I 22A6f E ""' •� � i y1+,• rr36 {i. 43 I da I I Alp r F �f I I �-- Rezoning Required MDR Density: I ar I�rs,.l x�+ hY}Y quts� i J ! a S i x # I 1 No a A I� 9 3 to 8 Units Per Acre AL{.i I ' ■ 7 4 7 � I Z �' i i� 1 �a x � _ x I �� Actual: Required LDR Density: n # e s n + , to 3 Units Per Acre Staff Report Confirms Correct Densities I _ I I i a IR 4 ' I F 'i fr 41 ir AMEND. ILI �, v oo\ Open Space L L_xL MC W G C G f7+ r r ^ - 0 City Code Requires: , 15/ = 9.5 Ac. ,.. - ■ ;y W i.J a:i Summerlin West Provides: r fl 24% = 15.4 Ac., 4 O Exceeds code by 6 additional acres _ . 4 r _ a_s Pedestrian Connectivity •.w F` -� �-��� • ee eye .� �� • reeSeee / �o- . 1. . Ipp .fi Over One Mile of Regional Pathways Amenities � � 4 I # Community Pool Fenced Play Structures Two Soccer Fields ZA `" �� Climbing Dome I � Two Pickleball Courts Two Fenced Dog Parks — — - Regional and Internal Pathways �� . ����#}�i �����'� .�:• �'` � . , � --= -_Fes.. { - 38.5 AmenityPoints '-"" = O n l 13 Re u i red k � �� I� Elevations - Single Story . ■ii■■■tom n�'• - , �,�,+M1..�,'��.?�.Y .� Elevations - Two Story ,I.I� ' ��— ::-����.,3. '-� •tea���:•. � , . " 1. 1. '.i�{ram_- .�� ,M,�. r � - ,.. ' .��-. � . :�:�° '�� •,w.;.. . F . ✓ Ark . . vim Elevations - Additional Single Story ( R - 8 sY elk � � �'3"' Y .�$ '.�ti.-�s'. x�. �' i� °:.-.!i�"l 'r.'.<�, tf��'.f ��`�!.<. •ems ,.�. �E l w ; } Housing Mix Map di 4.4 -.`w. �.. -.-.- -.ram - r Housing Type 3 2' x 100' Lots — 2 Story 38' x 100' Lots — Single Story - - 41 x 100' Lots — Single W/ Bonus 60'-70' x 100' Lots — Single and Two Story 24 2026 2028 2030 2032 7 Homes 20 100 180 260 Project Homes Homes Homes Homes Completed 027 2029 2031 2033 60 1110 220 300 Horner Homes Homes Homes Staff Report Discussion • Recommends Approval • Problematic Conditions : • Dictates " mix of housing types" • Replaces R-8 zone with R-2 or R-4 • Requires addition of stub across Rawson Canal Housing Types ". . . provide for diverse housing types throughout the City." Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.01 .01 G Given our lot size, price point, and target market, this product itself provides for a diversity of housing in the City Housing Types No Requirement for a Mix of Housing Within Each Project in Residential FLUM Designations Staff Report not only Dictates Housing Types but Specific Blocks Housing Types "'YY .A�.'YY I di �.`w. using Te- Ho 3 2' x 100' Lots — 2 Story " 38' x 100' Lots — Single Story - - 41 ' x 100' Lots — Single W/ Bonus 60'-70' x 100' Lots — Single and Two Story R � 8 vs Rm4 Required MDR Density: I ar I�rs,.l x�+ hY}Y quts� i J ! a } i x # I 1 we a A I� 9 3 to 8 Units Per Acre AL{.i I ' ■ 7 4 7 � I Z �' i i� 1 �a x � _ x I �� Actual: NEI Required LDR Density: n 1 \\l SSSJJI a` q} f k I 7 J a � v a la • y a . z .x # -- + � a.oeci � i . to 3 Units P e Acre Staff Report Confirms Correct Densities �♦ } yY x I _ I I i a IR 4 ' I Transition - Rawson Canal "W'Z, . r' Ar -.0 324 ft = r'•. r ' 76 ft Irrigation Easement -j ft Easement .� j,�� 465 ft N4+r _ 1R _ w w f14 J 327 ft • w t � r I • r .t '+ Rawson Canal is approximately 30 ft wide • : 7fi ft Irngatiion Easement ,_ 0 ft Regional Pathway r #p .. 20 ft Easement Aokilrr�■ra.i �, � ■as.rr■■aa■..e■■a-a■Ogg a.■suauaa.■ Property Line to Summerlin West S' as+a■a� aas1r■aar■■a■ aaaanaaii ; .. Stub to South Across Rawson Canal ACHD Position : Included in draft report • Removed from final : • Two bridges to be installed at collectors ' a • Lack of public benefit -- -� 4 +� - } T }' + a VOW , - .Ifs Mix of Housing Types r Highly Amenitized Neighborhood • Generous Open Space & Pathways +" • Complies with Comprehensive Plan Modifications to Staff Report • Delete Condition 2 • Requires attached or townhomes on Blocks 2, 3, and 4 despite no such requirement in code or comprehensive plan • Delete Condition 3.c • Requires replacement of R-8 with R-4 or R-2 in LDR areas despite density requirements being satisfied • Delete Condition 3.d • Requires a new stub road (bridge) across Rawson Canal despite ACHD decision I � a e � @ . ___-� . | .. . . . . . . . , , , ' ` •. - —----------— , _ A2 � — , 8 aL � . . . . . . . . - . •�� . . , . . } & � FA . § e5a L \ I c h I . . . . . . It Pd I§ | | . � | IN | . . | . . IN, � | ■ . . . am L GQ | ■L K N �4| | � �~ % � | Ic , » � Ix � `z� ■ s | ��� �� , - . ' ` 22� � �• ■| K | �\/ �®/ . ._ . /�+ ] ■ � _� __ , , Transportation Network mi Lk Hl ■ 0 •. . _ .tea Milli i — 1111 ! i - Istill 111111 i I . } 4 r i Cavalli Lane • Met with Property Owner • ACHD Report: • Does Not Cut Off Access Prior to Development • Dictates our Stub Locations (Three to this Property) • Additional Access : • Two Stubs from HadLer Subdivision (North) • Future E-W and N -S Collectors ImmediateLy Adjacent Cavalli Lane adler Subdivision . � , - , � - ■�������# . ��■ . � : » � F `d Pil( �. a raw m \ ' -- -� : . . . -- - - 0 ¥ , . � EmergencyResponse Times Fire Station 7 • �1111' — 11111 all Flark on Summerlin West s 111111 IL1111 IIIIII: 11 111 — # �1111 IIIL p * J Lq k� F+ k� ■ One Story Abutting Two Stories do • i r - - -Tr-T- - 6 I I� � I 7 11 Y - I - - 2 9 x f 14942 j F 2j! j 10 10 10 „ 8 27 All homes will have a mini mu of two { } car garage and a ddveway that Ill accommodated soit,s _ I an additional two ( ) parkip space for a total of x four (4) off-street parkirY pace. 1 r `• umrnerlin West will ave 319 additional Z_ orgy-street parking .9 additional per home)- �� 9 I Kuna School District To be able to scrwe this development, the Kuna School District Board of Trustees requests that developers assist the ta�pa�•ers to mitigate the costs of gro���th through partnership which can be in the form of a donation of land, money, or in kind facility work. Kuna School District Idaho Code 67-6513 "Fees established for purposes of mitigating the financial impacts of development must comply with the provisions of , Idaho Code:' Kuna School District Enrollment as of October 2024 Source: Idaho State Board of Education Fewer students in Stu d ent Cc u nt by Grad elementary schools means increased capacity in future years 500 Current Enrollment 450 I St 405 0 5t" 431 8t" 402 350 Ot" 520 300 12t" 491 KG 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 F There are 18% fewer First Graders than High School Seniors Source: Kuna School District Study by TischlerBise https://www.kunaschools.org/50872_'2 KUNA SCHOOL DISTRICT 10-YEAR GROWTH PROJECTIONS 10000 977 9307 8864 900D 8442 8040 8000 7658 7293 102 6946 6827 6963 7080 6615 6434 6562 6593 6300 6184 f�3 8 6{]{]1 5945 ,.-6063 5829 6000 T �I��4 ���� v7�5 ., 22.23 3-24 24-25 25-26 26.27 27-28 .8-29 29-30 30-31 31-32 32-33 Actual � 2 Increase 5 % Increase I Souroe=KunaSnhool 13i8trlct StOR Report Jay 12,�0n �7 Predicted s I"LeaLit Source; Kuna Sc#iaal District staff Report Sept i12024 T KSD Project Enrollment Source: KSD Student Generation Rate byTischlerBise Students Per Home Students Per School 337 Lots SPH al 337 Lots K-5 Middle High Kuna .513 173 Kuna 80 40 53 WASD .43 145 WASD 70 33 42 Verado Sub. . 124 42 Verado 20 10 12 Sub. Buyer Demographics New economy (Smaller sized homes + Older buyer demographic) = Fewer school aye children Source: DevCo prediction based on past projects 2034 2026 2028 2030 2032 20 337 Homes 100 180 260 Homes Homes Homes Homes 147 Students 9 44 78 113 Project Students Students Students Students Completed 1* 40 40 2027 2029 2031 2033 60 140 220 3a0 Homes Homes Homes Homes 26 61 96 131 Students Students Students Students ^"&Other Options Besides Assigned Schools M- Open • • TwoPublic • • West Ada SchoolCapacity All WASD schools Gem Prep (K-12) less than one closer to Summerlin West mile from Summerlin West than Kuna School District •schools ValorAcademy (K-12) opens in 2026 is five miles away 11. na School District da in sill mpowefing.Vudertfs to lead Pndudive lives. n�a � • • , RE: Srllvism Appllamiaa PP H-M44110 I]ear C'4rnIrW7M4rlCrl4 Kona fi Ao-1 Urltrtcl has tewr l.4d tnc vrZ<ar,on of CoTar Urotlp If r IhA iumwei In%WA Kuhdivia,onl and prswidcx rIw fallawklV O}rndil"to for}t.,I—5i.krstiat Kum ScKmJ nlurnct has uperinrrd rnprd gmvv*over the lent teal}ions Our Mnmh M23 hand meawre ro mcmise rbhttps://www.kunaschools.org/50872 ource: Kuna School District websito XftkkG1rA$=ty-did WAIkaia {'r15t7IlwcHmnl7PprovalrtltuCIutOfKunahII4glontW.we4�utrwLmeIYBHJULduu AL,Lm IME car bosc Lk-pt apascd PbLS HL thin soar arc 4eyund dt an a capmL}. _ In amaikImudausiudycandwcdby-rtrchkrrl3iee+CialclinCOINIr,uEfuliSIPILB&KMDuluat 10=,11MCOlCralhat cvcry new Su&M s�`-L 43f rpucx"uirn- Voluntary Mitigation Contribution * {y�i1� p�rsirrdc ;f44.Ju4� rxcpl ccMetRldian P�a�of Jane za��, We advocate for the needs of our students,taxpayers,and the community with developers as well Waprwpmdddv0*pami wOl imp cl. w SiIworTrnil Fkmantary,prttWhi HkIdlo Schtlol.=!Kau 110 as local governing boards and councils that control development. SCIloo1�l;xful Falb HiQn Schlwl�mnc�;xhi>h Ito Ott �1�r�, r1aU,�tth Ih�Ircltrt�nt��rallerrent We ask developers to provide a voluntary support contribution of about$3,200 per housing unit To be Ode 10 tlna+luYdrw4 islxrtL.the KwUL School LDmtnd Li«rd of Tntsimm nxlutmm lbu devclopen math She to help mitigate proposed developments'impact on schools and taxpayers. twTq_nn I,o mwgm dm curl,ofµmnth 191rsalgn pnrne,:hrp which cmi br in 1ho ray„of rkmiidiun of Herd,mrMrag,W Lndtind roci]il%vLjiFk In the fall of 2022,TischlerBise/Galena analyzed our enrollment,costs of construction of new schools, land acquisition costs,etc. used to calculate our voluntary support contribution. 1Ft'+Oryof lainnComprrhrnrixs Flo" mv�IwlhcCity CrAirwil nrovi&kax n rdak!sto iKhp s- St ml focdlkt xc;;vLrh Ktlw's R m't&pq1k11MiW"In Ordor to ONIMMd.the Kuria 5chadl Review the analysis here: Dipincl rg0tes mN wrahips%Olh llxdevelommand,mom irnwrPo wly.bonds. TischlerBise!Galena Report on Voluntary Capital Mitigation Fee Report ToaWor.MV rcbl.Uw on kaband io piumagr rOq,yd*k gMtvds widll ILdtLFdilrirt,suit g,c1XASJ1p xEA pruu1eislr,pa ti5itlr rprdCnriai dcvelgrelr.Pannnstips wilh dt:vcloperr minptba th impac homesrwil haws on Xma School Disidct and our AWky to dollwr a3vitsCll wiL nki mrgiru,eisuts Lh,rr q ald'V of xr4lae de lavi.xr W urri`Irt msdcmu or impnau,g arbmMitial a ddi6amO GDO:YI,On CHrrffm i mAt DLs Lu accrninalar�7LSFpwAI subdivLhio1u or a4 r dc%clu�wc LS.{SLv Who Code 07-651,1 Parlitr yrs�e e r i rovorobly import cnlr nbikil3 w irrn a Patti--xim dc+sbp<ncur,stir titi411 Inform I 'AnYA,(4t1nh'Fish UWRLF%SI.lrIC Ilac 1lLmugh as alila+KiCd ktecr rrti katarq Yra &&x dDINF.- 7 Maid" ILkr.i3tillF of 1no+r Roddj; arras erfLroa, �„Fcl rrhl•JU-t ASrd SLtiaellrlrir0mij 4J.1ij2A-r St1PdMelru Adaur /wsm KhAMFNr FL1MrFF*Athir, Keay sabihmbw. Kwle t7JISatM, C�rhlFiOnrl."Jm P:ar s.cru€dlcaWcn dY cioareukln m'lilru�lons MUNNOW ry NNRL,r IM1 i]rryctor 711 E Prrlir Rd., Munn,Idairy U614 Phcxw (2015)922.1000 Increased Funding Kuna School District will Voters rejected KSD bond (66.67%) in receive $22.5M for facilities March 2023 by 9pts from the state (HB 521 ) Voters rejected KSD Levy (50%)in May 2024 by 6pts Voters approved KSD Supplemental Levy in November 2024 School Capacities SchoolSource: Kuna 1�11 If FM LL4- p The boundary line between =r- c West Ada SD and the Kuna SD is close to Summerlin - « WestIlk ta 10 Tb— - LU colum , , . . -,. . l'.JC ,Ngl'.".!F.�'J '111 •,lr7JR ■. Mix of Housing Types ➢ For Sale House ➢ Homeowner opportunity People still want the American Dream More desirable and better living for resident ➢Sin le Story buyers g y y ➢ Empty Nesters, Divorced singles ➢Two Story buyers ' 4 ➢ Families Two Story with three car garage buyers Higher income families V IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Pine 43 West (H-2024-0038) by CSHQA, located at SW Corner of N. Webb Ave. and E. Fairview Ave. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0038 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment within 300' of a residential use. 194 I I PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: November 7, 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 8 PROJECT NAME: Pine 43 West (H-2024-0038) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please j provide HOA name I i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING November 7,2024 DATE: Continued from: October 17, 2024 ry . TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 vn_= SUBJECT: Pine 43 West—CUP 1-1-2024-0038 -r�o 9 LOCATION: Southwest corner of N. Webb Ave. and I N E. Fairview Ave., in the NW 1/4 of Section 8, T.3N.,R.IE. (Parcel AL ,F .. #R7104250581) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use permit(CUP) for a drive-through establishment within 300-feet of existing residential uses and a residential zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Acreage 2.18-acres Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Community(MU-C) Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped Proposed Land Use(s) Drive-through establishment Current Zoning C-G(General Retail&Service Commercial) Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 5/8/2024 attendees: History(previous approvals) H-2017-0058(Pine 43 DA Inst.#2018-000751);A-2018-0054(PBA ROS #11291) B. Community Metrics Description Details Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) No Page 1 195 Description Details • Requires ACHD Commission No Action(yes/no) Traffic Impact Study(yes/no) No Access(Arterial/Collectors/State One(1)access driveway is proposed via N.Webb Way,a collector street, Hwy/Local)(Existing and at the east boundary of the site. The exit driveway for the drive-through is Proposed) on E.Wilson St.,a collector street,at the south boundary of the site. III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Mandie Brozo, CSHQA—200 Broad Street,Boise, ID 83702 B. Owner: DRB Investments, LLC— 1157 N. Summerbrook Ave., Ste. 100,Meridian, ID 83642 C. Agent/Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 10/1/2024 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 9/26/2024 Public hearing notice sign posted 10/25/2024 on site Nextdoor posting 9/24/2024 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN(HTTPS://WWW.MERIDIANCITY.ORGICOMPPLAN): Land Use: This property is designated Mixed Use Community(MU-C)on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses,including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial-type buildings. Non-residential buildings in these areas tend to be larger than Mixed Use Neighborhood(MU-N)areas,but not as large as in Mixed Use Regional(MU-R) areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to,but also walk or bike to(up to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. Developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-C plan depicted in Figure 3E. The subject property is located at the corner of E. Fairview Ave., an arterial street, and N. Webb Way, a collector street, adjacent to other commercial and residential properties. In conjunction with the residential townhomes directly to the west and across the collector street to the south, multi family apartments to the southeast, adjacent commercial uses to the north and east that Page 2 F1 include restaurants, indoor recreation,personal services and retail stores, the proposed use contributes to the mix of uses desired in the MU-C designation and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES(https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan): Goals,Objectives,&Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and along streets."(2.01.04B) Parking lot landscaping and landscaping along streets is depicted on the proposed plans in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. • "Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City."(3.01.0117) City water and sewer service stubs have been provided to this site with the development of the subdivision. • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Area of City Impact." (3.05.01 J) The proposed drive-through restaurant will contribute to the variety of commercial uses and restaurant options within this Area of the City. • "Require pedestrian circulation plans to ensure safety and convenient access across large commercial and mixed-use developments."(3.07.02A). Sidewalks are depicted on the site plan along adjacent public streets with a pedestrian walkway from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance. Additionally, there is an existing 10- foot-wide multi-use pathway along the east side off. Webb Ave., which provides pedestrian connectivity to the north and south for interconnectivity between uses. • "Minimize noise, lighting,and odor disturbances from commercial developments to residential dwellings by enforcing city code."(5.01.01F) Operation of the proposed use should comply with City ordinances pertaining to noise, lighting, and odor disturbances. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(CUP) A CUP is requested for a drive-through establishment within 300-feet of existing residences to the west and south,and a residential(i.e. R-15)zoning district to the south, as required by UDC 11-4-3-11A. The drive-through is for a restaurant which will be located in the western-most tenant space of a new 10,1 00-square foot multi-tenant building on the southern portion of the site.No specific tenant has been identified at this time;however, it's anticipated that the drive-through will only provide pick-up service for pre-ordered items—no queueing is anticipated while products are being prepared. Note:A property boundary adjustment was previously approved that created the configuration of this property(i.e. ROS#11291 —Parcel 1), which is a legal parcel for development purposes. Therefore, this property isn't required to be included in a subdivision unless the developer wishes to divide the property in the future. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3): The proposed use is subject to the following standards: (Staffs analysis/comments in italic text) Page 3 197 Drive-Through Establishment: The proposed drive-through establishment is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC I1-4-3-11,Drive-Through Establishment. All establishments providing drive-through service are required to identify the stacking lane,menu, and speaker location(if applicable), and window location on the site plan. The site plan is also required to demonstrate safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties. At a minimum,the plan is required to demonstrate compliance with the following standards: The site plan identifies the stacking lane, menu and speaker location and window location as required. Staff recommends signage is installed before the drive-through exit onto E. Wilson St. warning drivers to watch out for pedestrians crossing the driveway. 1) Stacking lanes have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways, drive aisles, and the public right-of-way by patrons; The proposed restaurant features a stacking late with space to queue approximately three(3) vehicles. Because only pick-up service is anticipated to be provided, this should be adequate queueing,however,Staff does have concerns it may not be if a future use allows drive-up ordering and queueing. The Commission should determine if a re-design is necessary to accommodate more stacking,or if a restriction should be placed on the use(&future uses)to not allow ordering and queueing on-site. 2) The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking, except stacking lanes may provide access to designated employee parking. The stacking lane is a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking. 3) The stacking lane shall not be located within ten(10) feet of any residential district or existing residence; The stacking lane is not located within 10 feet of any residential district or existing residence.A 38 foot wide landscape buffer is provided to residential uses to the west in the area where the stacking lane is proposed to assist in mitigating the noise and fume impacts of the drive; an 11- foot wide escape lane is also proposed between the buffer and the drive-through.A 6-foot tall vinyl privacy fence is proposed along the west boundary of the site for added screening and a covered canopy is proposed in the area above the drive-through window, which should help buffer noise. 4)Any stacking lane greater than one hundred(100)feet in length shall provide for an escape lane; and The stacking lane is approximately 68 feet in length, which is below the 100 foot requirement for an escape lane; however, an escape lane is provided on the west side of the drive-through lane. 5) The site should be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street for surveillance purposes. The drive-through is located on the west side of the building and is fully visible from E. Wilson St., along the southern boundary of the site,for surveillance purposes. Restaurant: The proposed use is also subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC I1-4-3-49 Restaurant,which requires at a minimum, one(1) off-street parking space to be provided for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. Upon any change of use for an existing building or tenant space, a detailed parking plan is required to be submitted that identifies the available parking for the overall site that complies with the UDC requirements. Page 4 198 The site plan nor the application narrative states how many square feet the tenant space will be housing the proposed use;the proposed multi-tenant building is 10,100 square feet(s.f.),which would require 40 parking spaces—a total of 43 spaces are proposed on the southern portion of the site, exceeding the minimum standards. If one(1) space at 250 s.f.were required for the overall site based on the total square footage of the buildings depicted on the site plan(i.e. 17,900 s.f.),a minimum of 72 parking spaces would be required. A total of 94 spaces are proposed, including four(4)ADA spaces,which far exceeds the more restrictive minimum standard;however, it's likely the remainder of the uses in the multi-tenant building and the northern building will be non-restaurant commercial uses,which only require one(1)space per 500 s.f. of gross floor area. Therefore,the proposed parking meets and exceeds the minimum standard. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Development of the site shall comply with the dimensional standards of the C-G zoning district in UDC Table 11-2B-3. Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and building elevations and they comply with the required standards. Access(UDC 11-3A-31: The site plan depicts one(1) access drive via N. Webb Way, a collector street, at the eastern boundary of the site; local street access is not available for the site. Direct access via E. Fairview Ave. is prohibited. The escape lane for the drive-through onto E. Wilson St., a collector street,may also be used to exit the site. Staff recommends signage visible from E.Wilson St.is installed at the exit of the drive-through and the escape lane onto E.Wilson St. notifying motorists that access to the site is prohibited in that location. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street vehicle parking is provided on the site in accord with and in excess of UDC standards as noted above. A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space is required to be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C.A total of 10 bicycle parking spaces are proposed for the overall site with five(5) on this site,which exceeds the minimum standard by six(6) spaces overall. A detail of the bicycle rack should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) application that demonstrates compliance with the associated standards. Sidewalk(UDC 11-3A-1 : A 5-foot wide detached sidewalk exists on the site along N. Webb Way and E. Fairview Ave.,only a curb exists along E. Wilson St.; a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk is required to be constructed along E.Wilson St.,a collector street. Pedestrian Walkways(UDC 11-3A-19): The proposed plan includes a pedestrian walkway from the perimeter sidewalk along E. Wilson St. to the main building entrance in accord with UDC 11-3A-1913.4. There are no multi-use pathways designated on the Pathways Master Plan for this site. Staff recommends a pedestrian walkway with pavers,colored or scored concrete,or bricks is constructed across the driveway along the southern boundary of the site in alignment with the sidewalk along E.Wilson St. to delineate the walkway to make it more visible to motorists exiting the site.Note: When Pad A develops, a pedestrian walkway should be provided to the main building entrance from the perimeter sidewalk along N. Webb Way that meets the construction standards in UDC 11-3A-19B.4 and from the residential development to the west. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along E. Fairview Ave., an arterial street,and a 20-foot wide buffer is required along N.Webb Way and E. Wilson St., collector streets, measured from back of curb, landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A minimum density of one(1)tree is required per 35-linear feet of frontage along streets—the width of the driveway may be subtracted from the frontage but the vision triangle and seepage bed/storm drainage areas should be included. Trees should be spaced in accord with the standards in UDC 11- 3B-7C.4.Where the street buffers are encumbered by easements that prohibit trees,the buffer area is required to include a minimum five-foot wide area for planting shrubs and trees outside of the easement as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C.1b.The Project Information Landscape Requirements on the Page 5 Fl-991 landscape plan should be revised to reflect 13 trees required within the street buffer along N.Webb Way, a collector street,and a minimum of nine(9)trees within the street buffer along E.Wilson St., a collector street; and a 20-foot wide street buffer required along E.Wilson St.,a collector street.A revised landscape plan should be submitted that includes the additional trees and these revisions. A minimum 25-foot wide buffer is required along the west boundary of the site adjacent to existing residential uses per UDC Table 11-213-3, landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-9C. The Applicant requests approval of a reduced buffer width along the northern portion of the west boundary of the site ranging from 5 to 10-feet adjacent to parking and the rear of the building on Pad A(a 38-foot wide buffer is proposed directly adjacent to the drive-through on the southern portion of the west boundary). Staff recommends the 5-foot buffer adjacent to parking is widened to 7-feet and the length of the abutting parking spaces are reduced to 17-feet,which allows 2-feet of vehicle overhang(and increases the width of the buffer)in accord with UDC 11-3C-5B.4.A reduced building setback of 15-feet is also requested for the northern building based on the reduced buffer width. The UDC allows City Council to modify the buffer width at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners if determined appropriate; a reduction in the buffer width does not affect building setbacks—all structures are required to be set back from the property line a minimum of the buffer width required in the district(i.e. 25%per UDC 11-3B-9C.2.Note: Staff is in the process ofproposing an amendment to the UDC, which would allow buildings to encroach in the buffer area if consent from the abutting property owner is obtained and if Council grants a reduction to the buffer width. In the interim of a code change, the Director has determined a building can encroach within the required buffer area IF Council grants a reduction to the buffer width AND a reduced setback AND consent from the adjacent property owner is obtained for the buffer and building setback to be reduced. The Applicant should pursue obtaining consent from the abutting property owner for a reduced building setback based on the reduced buffer width for consideration by Council with the request for a reduced buffer. A letter from the owner of the abutting residential property was submitted, included in Section VIII.D below, in support of the reduced buffer width; approval of the reduced building setback is still needed.Because the Planning&Zoning Commission is the decision-making body on CUP applications,the Applicant will need to submit an application for City Council review of the Commission's decision in order for Council to review the request for a reduced buffer and building setback at a public hearing, as required by UDC 11-3B-9C.2. Interior parking lot landscaping is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Outdoor Lighting(UDC 11-3A-11): All outdoor lighting is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11C. Light fixtures that have a maximum output of 1,800 lumens or more are required to have an opaque top to prevent up-lighting; the bulb shall not be visible and shall have a full cutoff shield in accord with Figure 1 in UDC 11-3A-1IC.Staff recommends that the Applicant provide details of the lighting that demonstrate compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11 with the CZC application. Outdoor Service and Equipment Areas(UDC 11-3A-12): Outdoor mechanical equipment(including, but not limited to,heaters and fans) shall not be located within fifty(50)feet of any abutting residential districts.Although the abutting residential property to the west is not in a residential district, Staff recommends this requirement is extended to it as a condition of the subject CUP. To reduce noise,permanently mounted mechanical equipment shall be enclosed to the maximum extent possible. Outdoor utility meters,HVAC equipment,trash dumpsters,trash compaction and other service functions shall be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets. Safe access and adequate lighting should be provided in these areas. Page 6 F 00 Trash Enclosure: Two(2)trash enclosures are depicted on the plan to service the overall property—one(1) on Pad A and one(1)on Pad B. The orientation of the enclosure on Pad A does not meet Republic Services requirements for access and will need to be revised or relocated; the Applicant should work with Republic Services on an alternate acceptable design.Recycling receptacles should be provided in the trash enclosures. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed single-story structure as shown in Section VII.C. Building materials consist of wood(rough sawn douglas fir),brick, concrete, stone, longboard siding, stucco and glazing with standing seam metal roofing. Final design is required to comply with the Architectural Standards Manual for Commercial Design Guidelines.A design review application is required to be submitted concurrent with the CZC application. Certificate of Zoning Compliance(UDC 11-5B-1): A Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC)is required to be submitted for approval of the site and building design prior to submittal of building permit applications. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit per the provisions included in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section X. Pagc 7 F 01 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan(date: 8/29/24) 1021, z W gg gg H L L w z � 8g Vry g p g g a83 3 € W 4 4 ORO z - f z z s ° I 3C L J . s 9 N Page 8 F 02 B. Landscape Plan(date: 8/7/24) bD a v W �7 a d n z y z 0M �� gggJgpypyG §s }$�Gt g7�g7g$�g$+g��g pdLd Gt gpigp g$ig$g7�g g Gt g7�g7 g7�g g $y g7� g7� Z �9$d� � fyg�J949 aY 3yyyy��Jg¢A49a� �y�Jg��J99a§' f M3�199 t 1110 L IIN R•�g Y SAA ii A ES ii AA�9ff°� W z Z Oil i E I hill l 1 l 'i 19e11 ill � 9 °ge � Mil AE�� I'll P d'za° �� 9y f� t4 $ dip I'll 1 E1�i Y gy x ' 1�ppig@ xgx gg�g1' ''ygqiFaa :aip §t f 9H s `an�0�Y Oil ����� 3e ��i��� ��§ 21d 1•��9 a�� '�• 9$ tl: $.�e�� �� s �a�i $8 E � � e 4���Y1 iA.�i51E���1��i39�i�eA".�� �� o���§ �� i���'•�i E�3!$�3�E��S��p 1ie���� 4.....�i�1�� g �� g i LL LU d N U W �p 0 i � m � m of N Page 9 F 03 N $ Q N $ J a _ gto v . F w m Lu fl � y � 5 L/1 d z w m O 1 3 1 3 1 3 3 1 3 l i . __0 S II�'.�+}{,v�,]N n �.yoR/.�(a�oe a 1oocB.r.�q�o e 140001DO a 4 r � r I II , II fi p "N •j;5 NT NT I yS 9S F � ` 1 a z 0 CO h W©prq Z I w of L¢7 � Q � m v] N Page 10 F 04 m a 9 z _a Lp a v LU CL Z g a pp yy ! : l IT Y . g R R G I z � z W as F Fay . . . . . . . . I . m � Iffiflo LLJ o A 6 6 6 A 6 6 6 6 d i 1 i 1 1 1 1 I d d d d d d d d d r I S � w � ,„ ® m_?L N o z� — aE° d I ¢ q I ¢ ! w q I ' V I � o Q H N Page 11 F 05 33 gz g ISS w m n °��$$ g�Y� �� a d�dgg � ��g"gC @'8� C7 '�10 6G��•A4` LyS Al r � 9�a a ; a 5LH w Lu m V' Y T 'giaFi §F Q g ___Jl E33p Z W �¢ W z_ 3 � Z1a } . ... IN ME z a, t aa ! a' ¢ ig {{ \ '. lu� w g9g� aLL 'h `I �. a ad w Li o]Ci 007 F_ �a� "y lY ❑ p9 ❑ LU ¢ ¢ �. � gqgq J} 9 �J S 3: �al9R W IL 10 as $ N Q m m m N Page 12 F 06 C. Proposed Elevations (dated: 8/7/2024) Z E — 6 p gg co Y7 w ; j �i i o J z �gg III' :u 0 g �L. o LU a LU W r z w z [O i in in z ; C7 " y d i - i z n w J w w L - a � ❑g I� i I 4 z �, O O Q � w W J LJ S w = � F H o a o + � N 4 N s Page 13 F 07 D. Letter of Support for Reduced Landscape Buffer from Abutting Property Owner June 12,2424 Community Development Planning Division City of Meridian 33 E- Broadway Avenue, Ste- 102 Meridian, ID 93642 Re: Letter or SupporL To Whom It May Concern, Please accept this letter of support for the Pine 43 West Retail development.The property developer has worked closely with our team at.Fairview Row Townhtiomes and made concerted efforts to accommodate the proximity of our site to the wesL. The Pine 43 d eve Iopment has shown over the last few years Lhe need for mixed-use and retail spaces that are accessible to the surrounding multi-family complexes. IL is our belief thaLwhiIle the landscape buffer is being reduced from the minimum standard, Lhe provision of a privacy fence and increased plantings will provide adequate visual and sound buffering from our residential units- We feel that Pine 43 West Retail will improve pedestrian circulation and enhance neighborh00d connectivity, while remaining consistent WiLh City of Meridian design standards and future land use planning- Sincerely, dim lfaHrke Steve Martinez Tradewinds General Contracting Cottonwood Enterprises, LLC Page 14 F 08 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION Conditional Use Permit: I. Future development of this site shall comply with the previous conditions of approval and terms of the existing Development Agreement and the conditions contained herein[H-2017-0058 (DA Inst. #2018-000751)]. 2. The site/landscape plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be revised as follows: a. All mechanical equipment on the back of the building and outdoor service and equipment areas should be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. b. Install signage before the southern drive-through exit to E. Wilson St.warning drivers to watch for pedestrians crossing the driveway. c. Install signage visible from E. Wilson St. at the exits of the drive-through and the escape lane to notify motorists that access to the site is prohibited in that location. d. Include a detail of the bicycle rack that demonstrates compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. e. Depict a pedestrian walkway with pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks across the driveway along the southern boundary of the site in alignment with the sidewalk along E. Wilson St. g. Depict a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk along E. Wilson St., a collector street, in accord with UDC 11-3A-17C. h. Correct the Project Information Landscape Requirements on the landscape plan to reflect 13 trees required within the street buffer along N. Webb Way, a collector street, and a minimum of nine (9)trees within the street buffer along E. Wilson St., a collector street; and a 20-foot wide street buffer required along E. Wilson St., a collector street. Note: The width of the driveway maybe subtracted from the street frontage but the vision triangle and seepage bed/storm drainage areas should be included. Trees should be spaced in accord with the standards in UDC 11-3B-7C.4. i. Depict a minimum of 13 trees within the street buffer along N. Webb Way and a minimum of nine (9)trees within the street buffer along E. Wilson St. in accord with UDC 11-313-7C.3b. Where the street buffers are encumbered by easements that prohibit trees, the buffer area shall include a minimum five-foot wide area for planting shrubs and trees outside of the easement in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.lb. j. Depict shrubs and other vegetative groundcover along with trees within the 20-foot wide buffer along N. Webb Way at the back side of the sidewalk in accord with UDC 11-313-7C.3, instead of outside the buffer where vehicles will overhang beyond the parking spaces, which may result in damage to the shrubs/plantings. k. Depict all outdoor mechanical equipment; such equipment(including,but not limited to, heaters and fans) shall not be located within fifty(50) feet of any abutting residential dwelling. 1. Depict a recycling receptacle in the trash enclosures. Page 15 F 09 m. Depict a 25-foot wide buffer to residential uses along the west boundary of the site as set forth in UDC Table 11-213-3; or, submit and obtain approval of an application for City Council review of the Commission's (or Director's decision on a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application) decision to reduce the width of the buffer(and building setback) as allowed by UDC 11-B-9C.2 and as determined by the Director.Note:IF Council grants a reduction to the buffer width and a reduced building setback based on the reduced buffer; AND consent is obtained from the adjacent property owner for a reduced building setback in addition to a reduced buffer, the Director has determined a reduced setback may be approved in the interim of a code change allowing such. A minimum 7-foot wide buffer should be provided adjacent to parking;parking spaces may be reduced to 17 feet in length. n. Re-orient or relocate the trash enclosure on Pad A to meet Republic Services requirements for access. 3. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11—Drive-Through Establishment and 11-4-3- 49—Restaurant is required. 4. Direct access via E. Fairview Avenue is prohibited; access via E. Wilson St. to the site is also prohibited—access via E.Wilson St.from the site is allowed. 5. All of the street buffer improvements along E. Fairview Ave.,N.Webb Ave. and E. Wilson St. shall be constructed and installed with the proposed development,unless the property is subdivided into two (2)lots prior to development,in which case only the improvements for this property(i.e. Pad B) shall be required. 6. All outdoor lighting shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11C. Details of the proposed light fixtures shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrate compliance with these standards. 7. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design of the site and structure shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19;the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and with the provisions in the Development Agreement. 8. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6. A time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-513- 6F. See the proiect file in the public record for comments and conditions from other City departments and agencies. X. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use Permit(UDC 11-5B-6E) The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit requests upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the C-G district if the Commission determines the proposed stacking lane accommodates enough vehicles to prevent obstruction of drives and parking spaces (see Analysis, Section VI for more information). Page 16 F210] 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Stafffinds the proposed restaurant with a drive-through will be harmonious with the uses allowed in the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section IX of this report. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use will be be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Stafffinds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection,drainage structures,refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Stafffinds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Stafffinds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials,equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Staff ,finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005). Staff finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. Page 17 ■ W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Addison Circle Subdivision (H-2024-0040) by Centurion Engineers, Inc., located at 4535 N. Black Cat Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0040 A. Request: Annexation of 1.87 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of seven (7) building lots and one (1) common lot on 1.87 acres of land. 212 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: November 7,, 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 9 PROJECT NAME: Addison Circle Subdivision (H-2024-0040) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name 2 V 1�-(A 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,­, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 11/7/2024 2&F .1 MO DATE: 1111 "F. : '-, 7� TO: Planning&Zoning Commission LEI FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 k sallen@meridiancity.org e r� APPLICANT: David Crawford Centurion Engineers, Inc. SUBJECT: H-2024-0040 legend , Addison Circle Subdivision Project Location Area of Impact r �^ LOCATION: 4535 N. Black Cat Rd. in the NE 1/4 of City Limits -- Section 33,TAN.,R.1W. (Parcel Analysis #SO433110460) J 1 I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Annexation of 1.87-acres of land with an R-8 zoning district; and preliminary plat consisting of seven(7)building lots and one (1)common lot on 1.87-acres of land. B. Issues/Waivers Council approval of the dead-end street is required as it exceeds the maximum length standard in UDC 11-6C-3B.4a of 500-feet at 545-feet. C. Recommendation Staff: Approval with the conditions in Section IV below. Commission: Pending D. Decision City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview 213 I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant/undeveloped - Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential - Existing Zoning RUT in Ada County VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Adopted FLUM Designation Medium Density Residential(MDR) VII.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 8/14/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 6/24/2024 Site posting date 10/1/2024 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District Error! Reference source not found. • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access W. Torana St.,a local street - Meridian Fire No comments received Meridian Police No comments received Error! Reference source not found. Meridian Public Works Wastewater • Distance to Mainline Available at site • Impacts or Concerns See Public Works site specific conditions Meridian Public Works Water • Distance to Mainline Available at site • Impacts or Concerns None—ensure no trees are located within 10' of the water meter. School District(s) No comments received Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions for comments received. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The subject property is currently zoned RUT in Ada County and designated as Medium Density Residential(MDR)on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The MDR designation allows for dwellings units at gross densities of three(3)to eight(8) dwelling units per acre. The Applicant proposes to annex the property into the City with R-8 zoning and subdivide it into seven(7)building lots for the development of single-family residential detached homes at a gross density of 3.74 units per acre consistent with the use and density desired in the MDR designation in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed R-8 zoning is consistent with the zoning of adjacent surrounding properties, also zoned R-8. Staff recommends a Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation that includes the provisions in Section IV. Lots in the proposed subdivision range in size from 4,399 to 7,157 square feet(s.f.)with homes ranging in size from 1,872 to 2,265 s.f. The subject property is an enclave, surrounded by City annexed land on the abutting three(3) sides. Comprehensive Plan policy#3.03.01E encourages infill development. Table 4:Proiect Overview Description Details History None Phasing Plan 1 phase Residential Units (7)single-family detached units Open Space None required Amenities None required Physical Features None Acreage 1.87-acres Lots 7 building/1 common Density 3.74 units/acre(gross) B. History None C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): There is an existing home and accessory structures on the site that will be removed with development. These structures are required to be removed prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat. The existing well is required to be abandoned; proof of abandonment must be provided to the City Public Works Department. The well may be used for pressurized irrigation purposes. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed single-family residential detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted in the R-8 zoning district,per UDC Table 11-2A-2. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Future development is required to comply with the dimensional standards for the R-8 zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 215 The proposed lots comply with the minimum property size standard of 4,000 s.f. and the minimum street frontage of 40-feet. Future structures on the proposed lots must comply with the minimum setback requirements and maximum building height for the district. The proposed development is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policy#3.03.04B: "Ensure existing county enclaves provide necessary urban-level transportation and utility infrastructure as part of the annexation process." D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3G): Because the site is below five(5) acres in size,it's exempt from the common open space and site amenity standards listed in UDC 11-3G. 2. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets A minimum 25-foot wide street buffer is required along N. Black Cat Rd.,an arterial street,landscaped with a variety of trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C. The buffer should be measured from the ultimate back of curb location as anticipated by ACHD. Calculations should be included on a revised landscape plan that demonstrates compliance with the required standards. If the unimproved street right-of-way is ten(10)feet or greater from the edge of pavement to edge of sidewalk or property line,the developer is required to maintain a ten-foot compacted shoulder meeting the construction standards of the transportation authority and landscape the remainder with lawn or other vegetative ground cover; landscaping improvements within the right-of-way shall require a license agreement between the property owner and the transportation authority per UDC 11-3B-7C.5. ii. Tree preservation Existing trees 4-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site during development may require mitigation(see UDC 11-313-10 for more information). There are some large existing deciduous and coniferous trees on the site around the existing home that will likely need to be removed with development.Include mitigation information and calculations on the landscape plan that demonstrates compliance with the standards in UDC 11-3B-10.C.5. iii. Storm integration Stormwater integration is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313- I IC.A Geotechnical Investigation report was submitted with this application. iv. Pathway landscaping No pathways are proposed;however, Staff recommends a micro-path connection is provided between the sidewalks along W.Torano Ct. and N.Black Cat Rd.,which requires a minimum 5-foot wide strip of landscaping along each side of the pathway with landscaping in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C.Include calculations that demonstrate compliance with the required standards. 3. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Residential parking analysis Off-street vehicle parking is required to be provided for residential uses based on the number of bedrooms per unit(see UDC Table 11-3C-6 for more information). On-street vehicle parking is also available as extra parking to serve residents and guests. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 216 4. Building Elevations (Comp Plan, Architectural Standards Manual): Three(3)color conceptual building elevations were submitted for proposed single-family detached structures within the development as shown in Section VII.G. Building materials are proposed to consist of a mix of horizontal cottage lap,vertical board&batten and shake lap hardi-board siding with stone and brick wainscot accents and 30-year architectural shingles. Design review is not required for single-family detached structures; however,because structures on Lots 3 and 5,Block 1 will be highly visible from N.Black Cat Rd., an arterial street,Staff does recommend that the sides of homes on these lots incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g. projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types,or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street.Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. 5. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): Existing fencing is depicted on the landscape plan; new fencing is not depicted. The UDC (11-3A-7A.7)requires the developer to construct fencing abutting pathways and common open space lots to distinguish common from private areas. Therefore,fencing should be depicted on a revised landscape plan along the back side of the street buffer along N. Black Cat Rd. and along the northern and southern property boundaries adjacent to common open space in adjacent developments if the existing fencing is removed, in accord with the standards in UDC 11-3A-7A. 6. Parkways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways are not proposed within the development,nor are they required. The proposed development is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: • #2.02.02C: Support infill development that does not negatively impact the abutting, existing development. • #2.02.02F:Ensure that new development within existing residential neighborhoods is cohesive and complementary in design and construction. • #3.07.01C:Require appropriate landscaping, buffers, and noise mitigation with new development along transportation corridors (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc). E. Transportation Analysis The following information on planned improvements in the area and level of service planning thresholds for Black Cat Rd. is from the ACHD report: ACHD Planned Improvements 1. Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)l Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP): • The intersection of Black Cat Road and McMillan Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be reconstructed as a multi-lane roundabout with 2-lanes on the north leg, 2-lanes on the south, Vane east, and 1-lane on the west leg in 2028. • Black Cat Road and Bridge#1394 is scheduled in the IFYWP to be reconstructed and widened in 2028. • Black Cat Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Ustick Road to McMillan Road between 2031 and 2035. • McMillan Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Black Cat Road to Ten Mile Road between 2031 and 2035. • McMillan Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from McDermott Road to Black Cat Road between 2036 and 2040. City of Meridian I Department Report 11I. Staff Analysis ■ Level of Service Planning Thresholds 1. Condition of Area Roadways Traffic Count is based on Vehicles per hour(VPH) Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service Black Cat Road 312-feet Minor Arterial 471 Better than"E° `*Torana Street 50-feet Local NIA N/A `Acceptable level of service for a two-lane minor arterial is"E"(575 VPH). ACHD does not set level of service thresholds for local streets. ACHD is requiring additional right-of-way(ROW)to be dedicated for the expansion of N. Black Cat Rd.,totaling 50-feet from the centerline of the road abutting the site. A Traffic Impact Study was not required. Public transit is not available to this site. 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Access is proposed via the extension of W. Torana St., an existing local stub street, at the west boundary of the site; direct access is not proposed or allowed via N. Black Cat Rd. 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): No multi-use pathways are proposed, and none are required per the Pathways Master Plan. 3. Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): No pathways are proposed;however, Staff recommends a sidewalk connection is provided between the sidewalks along the W.Torana St. cul-de-sac and N.Black Cat for pedestrian connectivity and in accord with UDC 11-6C-3B.4b,which requires a pedestrian connection due to the length of the dead-end street(i.e.W.Torana St.). 4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): All sidewalks are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. A 5-foot wide attached sidewalk is proposed along W. Torana St., a local street, and a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk is proposed along N. Black Cat Rd. an arterial street, in accord with the required standards.Note:Because a 5-foot wide sidewalk exists to the north and south, Staff does not recommend a 10 foot wide sidewalk is required. The sidewalk to the north of this site along N. Black Cat Rd. does not extend all the way to the subject property—it stops at the common lot in Oakcreek Subdivision where the West Tap Sublateral/Settlers Northside Canal is located(see photo below). There is an asphalt pathway that exists on the northern portion of the common lot but stops at the south side of the headgate, creating a 15+/-gap. Staff recommends as a provision of annexation in the DA that an asphalt pathway is constructed off-site to the north to the existing pathway. This recommendation is supported by the following Comprehensive Plan policies: • #6.01.01I, Work with Ada County Highway District(ACHD) to identify gaps in the sidewalk system and pursue sidewalk construction for existing substandard streets. • #6.01.02D, Consider needed sidewalk,pathway, landscaping, and lighting improvements with all land use decisions. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 218 y - - F 5. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): i. Dead end streets At 545-feet,the proposed street(W. Torana St.) exceeds the maximum length standard of 500-feet for dead-end streets in UDC 11-6C-3B.4a. Per UDC 11-6C-3B.4b, Council may approve a dead-end street up to 750-feet in length where an emergency access is proposed or where there is a physical barrier such as an arterial roadway; and where a pedestrian connection is provided from the street to an adjacent existing or planned pedestrian facility. In this case, an arterial street(i.e.N. Black Cat Rd.) abuts this site to the east creating a physical barrier. If Council approves the length of the proposed street, Staff recommends a pedestrian connection is provided from the sidewalk along N.Black Cat Rd.through the common area to the sidewalk along W. Torana St. ii. Block face The proposed block faces comply with UDC standards for such. The proposed development is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policy#3.03.04B, "Ensure existing county enclaves provide necessary urban-level transportation and utility infrastructure as part of the annexation process." F. Services Analysis See Service Accessibility Report in Section VILC below. 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): All waterways, except natural waterways, are required to be piped unless improved as a water amenity or linear open space, in which case they may be left open,as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-6. There is an open canal(i.e. West Tap Sublateral/Settlers Northside Canal)that runs alongside this property on the abutting property to the north that is on a common lot in Oakcreek Subdivision No. 3. 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided in each development as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in accord with the adopted standards, specifications and ordinances; design and construction shall follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the City per UDC 11-3A-18. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 219 4. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): All utilities for the proposed development are required to be installed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-21. Water and sewer service are available at the site.Main lines are required to be extended to and through the subject property with development. The developer should coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Dept. and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. The proposed development is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policy#2.02.02,Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division I. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. A final plat shall not be submitted until the DA and Ordinance is approved by City Council. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum,incorporate the following provisions IF City Council determines annexation is in the best interest of the City: i. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. ii. The existing well on the site shall be abandoned and proof of abandonment shall be provided to the City Public Works Department. The well may be used for pressurized irrigation purposes. iii. The sides of homes on lots that face N. Black Cat Rd. (i.e. Lots 3 and 5,Block 1) shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies, material types,or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. iv. The Developer/Owner shall construct a 5-foot wide detached asphalt pathway off-site to the north along N. Black Cat Road across Lot 14,Block 7,Oakcreek Subdivision No. 3 to the existing asphalt pathway. 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: i. Depict a minimum 25-feet street buffer along N. Black Cat Rd. on a common lot or a permanent dedicated buffer easement with a note that it will be maintained by the property owner or homeowner's association, as set forth in UDC 11-313-7C.2a. The buffer shall be measured from the ultimate back of curb location as anticipated by ACHD. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 220 ii. Include a note that prohibits direct lot access via N. Black Cat Rd. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat application shall include the following revisions: i. Depict a minimum 25-foot wide street buffer along N. Black Cat Rd.,an arterial street, measured from the ultimate curb location as anticipated by ACHD, landscaped with a variety of trees, shrubs,lawn, or other vegetative ground cover that complies with the updated standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.3.Lawn and other grasses requiring regular mowing shall comprise no more than sixty-five (65)percent of the vegetated coverage of a landscape buffer; all other vegetated coverage shall be mulched and treated as planting area for shrubs or other vegetative cover. Areas along required walls and closed vision fences should generally be reserved for planting beds with a minimum of one(1) shrub per seven (7) lineal feet offrontage. Include calculations that demonstrate compliance with the required standards. Depict the future back of curb location as anticipated by ACHD. ii. Depict a 5-foot wide detached asphalt pathway off-site to the north along N. Black Cat Rd. to the existing asphalt pathway. iii. Depict a minimum 5-foot wide micro-path connection between the sidewalks along W. Torano Ct. and N. Black Cat Rd.with landscaping in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. Include calculations that demonstrate compliance with the required standards. iv. Depict fencing along the back side of the street buffer along N. Black Cat Rd. and along the northern and southern property boundaries adjacent to common open space in adjacent developments if the existing fencing is removed, in accord with the standards in UDC 11-3A-7A. v. Ensure no trees are located within 10' of the water meter. vi. Depict mitigation trees and calculations for all existing healthy trees four-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 1 OC.5. Include calculations that demonstrate compliance with the required standards. vii. If the unimproved street right-of-way is ten(10) feet or greater from the edge of pavement to edge of sidewalk or property line,the developer is required to maintain a ten-foot compacted shoulder meeting the construction standards of the transportation authority and landscape the remainder with lawn or other vegetative ground cover; landscaping improvements within the right-of-way shall require a license agreement between the property owner and the transportation authority per UDC 11-3B-7C.5. 4. Stormwater integration shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11C. 5. All existing structures shall be removed from the site prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat. 6. The preliminary plat shall become null and void if the Applicant fails to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat within two(2)years of the approval of the preliminary plat as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7A; or obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7C. See the Agency Comments folder contained in the project file in the public record for other City Department and Agency comments and conditions: (copy the link into a separate browser) City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 221 https://weblink.meridian city.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=358518&dbid=0&repo=Meridian Cit Y V. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment and development plan complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan as noted. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the proposed amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, including the purpose statement. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment should not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds the proposed map amendment should not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City as it will reduce enclaves in the City and will provide for more efficient provision of City services. B. Preliminary Plat(UDC-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; Stafffinds the proposed plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and will be consistent with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the above-noted conditions. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds public services are currently being extended to serve the site and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Stafffinds the proposed plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's CIP. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 222 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Approval of the proposed annexation with the requirement of a Development Agreement that includes the provisions in Section IV; and approval of the proposed preliminary plat with the conditions in Section IV. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action 223 VII. EXHIBITS A. Project r to Project Overview) NUN- Legend1. Aerial o ProjectLocation Area ofImpact • Analysis 2. ZoningMap -RR- 0 ��Illil■■1liii�rrrrrrl• ■rn �/f fl ,II WII RII� rrrmlr"" �r111 lIIIII! � qJ !IIlIIr C Cullllllll ,Y. IIr1! 1}rr Legend l�r•areuTrriry�� Project Locationd. �fillrflplrl nulriil ���. Area of impactUT n•Im,����, In n•t- Analysis - City of •ian I Department ReportExhibits 3. Future Land Use K KqM Rio rJ® Legend Civic ® Project Location Area of Impact 0 Analysis MU-NR 4. Planned Development Map P: W 0 Ji ------- Legend ' r Project Location ; =® ------ City Limits ; Planned Parcels i Area of Impact f Annlvsis ®E-M City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 225 B. SubjectI 1 •r, Looking northwest • Black Cat • stir, :��.., � �,i i` f; ;• Looking southwest • Black 1 Aerial view I'ry of property City of MeridianDepartment R"1• Exhibits C. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL S 433'110460 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Score: 17 5th Percentile Location Within 112 mile of City Limits YEU0W Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains< 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Flaodplain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplain or > 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time 5-1)min. Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN Pathways Within 114 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Not within 114 of current or future transit route RED Ultimate configuration(#of lanes in master streets Arterial Road Buildout Status plan) >existing (#of lanes)&road IS NOT in 5 yrwork FLED plan M& School Walking Proximity From 112 to 1 mile walking YELLOW School Drivability Not within 2 miles driving of existing or future school Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type RRye ncraratFd nn 11-M-AVA hvMFBIn15MaaIIFn City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 227 D. Annexation &Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map NTURION ENGINCERS, INC. Contart Information JflsePli U. Canning, PEiFtS 2323 5- Vista Ave Ste tar Boise. ID 63705 Telephone 20B-30-3361 jdcanning@centengr.rnm May 20,2024 Addison Circle Annexation and Re-Zone description A parcel of land situate in the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 33,Township 4 North.Range 1 West. Boise Meridian,Ada Cuurty, Idaho,and being more particularly dE5CFlbed as follows: Commencing at the northeast cormsr of said Section 33; thence SOO'U3'S4'W,795-41 feet along the easterly boundary of said Section 33and along the centerline of North Black Cat Raadto a point which hears NO OT 3'54'E,1.836.Z9 feetfram the east quarter corner of sa id 5ecti an 33,whit h is the point of ftnni ng, Thence SOU'03'S4*Y,312.45 feet along the easterly boundary of said Section 33 and the centerline of said North BldLk Cal R&ml, thence N99'52'34 W,279.72 feet along the neftherly boundary of said Rapid Creek Subdivisiofr No-2,and the easterly extension thereof,as shown in Book 121,Pages 18950 through 18953. records of Ada County.Ida he to the: southeast carne r of Oakcree k 5ubd ivi lion No.3,as shown in Book 106,Pages 14692 and 14693,records of Ada County,Idaho-, Thence N06*15'S3"E,30I].2U feet along the easterly boundary of said 03kcreek Subdivision No.3,to the southerly houadary of Lot 14,Block 7 of said Oakcreek Subdivision No-3; Thence NB8°43'21"E,246-50 feet along the southerly boundary of said Lot 14,Hlotk 7 of$aid oakcreek SubdiwisiOn No.3,to ttie Paint d Beginning. Comprising 1.67 acres,more or less_ p Ar V .� OF Legal Ueescription Addison CirdE Annexation and Re-Zane Page 1 of 1 °`. ` City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 22s Addison Circle Subdivision Annexation and lie-Zone Boundary T SUCK 7 IW OWCAErK SLMSKA No. 3 �# �. I..51Y SEULMS CAft POW OF HECINNING RLaO r o- r� W. Torana Q. Q IQcnK k, 4116 e Or f�9453 di 3791-7V WrPID {SEEK 9U� Pk. L1�. 6LOCX 2 OENMRION EHGrMECKS, INC. 33 34 ComAirrgtrrgu3.is i.i%r5uiweWrl,Jdjo Derr M33.VdU A-e Su.206 1 9oisn Q SPOS MBIA11391 k*ewe Pm rxiom MAY 30. 20?4 !' +x MLI#441 w wlI kQ{ � macm" RUM BCC City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 229 E. Preliminary Plat(date: 5/13/2024) .���.,wo..,. �aNroy,� a a y, wm 1'ela'�•�Iw��ew'�,a',o a s_ r, lBaS 6gC902 �� �$ h n¢uv.'o mnxua�.�w.Ym 1 N aw6 aefEa 01�!^9790a�5�"V°w SREZ L�IYiA[ n aax[ u � 4+ ��u•L.�.s a�z...e.a a.nm�.� � [� P4 S I � �!PPV �� C 'D11E'S7I33NI17N3 NCPfALH37 y�gY0LaR7 Ie�d Smu�w![ab aLK BRolaVw� Ram-gin R IR ! f - - a -_- ------ -- - - u ----�- - '" t- a � 11 -'-- ---- ---! -----.. El e p '1 e" 9� •� ______ _ _ _ , _________________J 99 7 y N RW " 0•, i i �^� gp � 11 Efl all IV �:°s_�g8�°�� 3�� E- 4 8 aP•f8 d yeeyyxyygyppqq py{ a's ' [tl ak kp �9p`�6f e k tl 7 A R tl A A F R N A F g 4 3E 4 e a n S i Eli mi � � E �n Cg e C �. EEcc cQ N a EC kggg� 61� as i x e @ F Fggpp @G uN11Ili y "papg-g�� 9B � �@@�@��@§9Q R5s ls�5 RS 599x€ z� aSil ,� s n a a s e n e a _. ,. •. a tl- -- - - a a x }k¢� j nY Lb I— 5' ! Y—� YY Yeeee�e��e�����1��""��=�d�: City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 230 F. Landscape Plan(date: 6/4/2024) '_ I: a ■ �; Ina 5 5 �e �e u. q is 1 3 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 231 F...:....ml.pmigld■miwo mmmm.*misses..i.u.mx.p...n...i...amid.m mild In■.:..u.ml.*...dd}..i...omd.p mi.d u il.lilll IRl I■IR■ll.f iilRllr F■IRi■ii111111I■rwill.lillilRl r■IRilAfilrllwl I■IR■l1Rli11.11!1■rRilll l{l wlrlrl rwlR■R[■lltlwlalRw IIlR,1R[■ll lR[!t!1<IRIRIIR{■lf IRlAI11IwIR11I[■Y1I I!I Rw IRIR11Rl■lf w1lR!*IRIRIIR[■ I111 ar•[p 111111911 RI Ir1IR1110111w*1111111.I1I11IN[Ill<rgr l Rl f/wnl lr•[IIlr11r NMI NMI ineloso 1104 1110 llkllwrlrr[I IIoll I lrlAlrl .a: IlllrlrlRR■1■r11111[lRIr1RR■ll*w111■RrlrlRl■I11w1,r11alr�rlR!<■1■r1111gRRIl1Rr■r■*1rr11lRr�rlAl■1■}wr,rlla •:o 1a1■a■larrawllrwl111rilrwR inRliilnnrlwrww![RlirlrrarrR1111i11wrilsnwlllrlR■!i><lirrrlRsssrrllwlr lllaarlatl lwlRlra[i1lal[ ■{laawllitlllRrlrl■{1alrRa�l11R■i[■Ilraal ■■a[■l�aiilaflalR■l[■ 1I11YII11rlrI11l111Ir1111 IIIIIlrlrlrlRlr11r1111II[IrIIFrIRI1RIlF1111 fi■IIIIIlIIrlrrrlRllRlrl IrRll■lt!)<w1MF41rr1 —— �■lRI■IK}wl,rlr■Ill{RI■IMl.Hr{!a1 -- Ir■IlrglwlK}>tl,wti .rw.ww■iwiwla>t,��rawFw - � I aar*rwww[Rlwl■z<rl{■r*rRwlr � Iwll�u■ralrrrwwr� ., . 111R■R{■{I■allaT{IIIR IrIR■RIi{wIwRIRaR111R■/ I��I�I�I lRRRIriR■■[!s , » Rrlwuwurlulallr}1r rwiwlRlwllrllrralr �er;:rlRuwal R1R}fl,laal■Ir{!a Ill{wllaw.all ° Ir}111117f If■IRillRlill 14[4lll[Ilw rlilrl�l���l�l�l I rRil1 IIRIR■ll■ll■ ■Ill �n�N°,r■■aolu11V11WrIcrunIMAW11]Iu11.n�nm�unnr lRR nI1R11iu1 SA,rl01RA9rlIISIAEIIIRAR � � rton�mmmulnlrmuA�mor�nRmor�nAaor�nr 11 II�I.`l,1' n_��e�i��_r__R-_ran•-•a ism;��ar_le;�s_�;oneu�,.�rv'•;�,�:�c-i�r nnnnnnnn FUN E]IFEIINIIE]IFEI IN] L�MOVIE]]ICI h CI h CI.�,_�� : rlr■raalllll rl 11111�11IS■1111 RI IRIlill ll1lII1R1111R1 HIII111I11IHll[iR IIr11F{IIIllll.11 rl RI I■IIIII IIIHll1111IIIliilllllllllll1111 Rll�lil YrRI1rIRl■I�Irw1111rRI1rIRl1lI�rwPlllRIIrIRI�14lP1■RIIrIRI■!�*wllwlRl IrrRl�l4rp11!!f I1rIRI�Nlw1U Ir Illl■Ilil■■rR�R.fi1l.IP' 'f�lIRI■■RI!■If1iF■itIRI■Ilillril■Iif1■1■IIRIlII■iliRRl■Il■1llr�■Sill ■{tAl1lR1wIR1■ll[■{R!R!}' {■�AIRIJwIwIRI■RR[i{RilllitwlRlRRR[■{tAr11l1AR��iR#Rlilwr�*.IfIRIRIR!■I lrrlrl1111[Ir11r11rw111rr'____• "'IAIRl1111A11■1[llllEllllRlll•r------------- -- n..,..:.n...: ———,I,111 7R■llrllli■RIIrIRr■f II 1■l l■Ff�11R1■Ilwll ■■■■ on _� nnn�I�In�In rm ICI la ICONI I!I NOW 'I I I 1 11 --- hI I=11 19 hI ICI 30 YEAR ARI4ITECTI.RAL SHIN�EB IN BLACK COLOR E112 PITCH CEDAR'VENTS WITH 4x4 CORBELS BELO'1 TYPICAL ON FRONT FACING ELEVATION ONLY SHAKE LAP SIDING ON FROM FACING GABLES li � 11f8 FRIEZE BOARD AT SIDING BEFIEEN 1X8 PRIME TRIO FASCIA v 1 V I, 11 SHAKE AND OTHER TYPICAL ij �h �1 V V V � SIDING TYPES AT FRONT ONLY 1 L WIND TRIM WRAPS AT ®®®®®®®® ®® 4T FRONT POST ALL WINDOWS AND AT ALL AT FRCNT PORCH BEAM W DEGREES INSIDE OR OUTSIDE CORERS COTTAGE LAP W 1.11ARD Li $IN CIW, TYpICAI_L ONWISE OTHER _ _ � � VISE NOTED 12•x12°x4e• COLUMN IB'-0"S B'-0" Q.H. DOOR RASE WITH STOPS WRAP ALL SIDES 30' TALL STONE WAINSCOTTING WTIH 24"WRAP AT THE CCRPER TYPICAL ON BOTH SIDE OF GARAGE B&B SIDING AT FRONT HALL TAHOE YODEL D E I OF GARAGE WHARF, ABOVE STONE I v I I� L ON 24"WRAPS 1 ,872 SQ .FT . 3 BEDROOMS + OFFICE 3 FULL BATHS (2 BEDROOMS ARE SUITES) ADDISON GIRCL E LOTS 5, 6 AND �• I l.i :I rl '. I I,, �I��I . I la l i 11 I l.i :I�rl ,I l.i :I II i l., ' I '4.',I '•I ' I 'i..I i I'I � I '' .,I '. I 'I ,i i 'I I I ..i ,i l ' I I ' I• 1'.! V' 1 ''.I� II. I TAHOE MODEL - 1,812 SQ.FT. 3 BEDROOM + DEN TPAVIITI0t4AL ELEVATION FEATURING 96 YEAR ARCHITECTURAL SHINGLES COTTAGE LAP AND BOARDIBATTEN HARDIEOARD SIDING SHAKE LAP HARDBOARD 91DING ON FRONT GABLES CULTURED STONE WAINSCOTTING 16 FOOT X a FOOT OVERHEAD DOORS WITH WINDOWS IXS FASCIA BOARDS CUSTOM GABLE END VENTS WITH CORBELS City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 233 Ilrr■a[r■Iwrrrir■Irl■a■■IwrrRil■1>III■r[!■rr rrrar■Ir1■a[lrslwrrrir■Irl■a[r■Irl[r ■r l■u/urruallrr■url■n■IRllnrlR llrtlrlr■rr/Iw11u rrR11/nnwn■IRrinr'Irr1■Inr■rr■llllurl rl.r+.rlrlra�lal■rwlr■■nrlrrrlil■rf�1�M■nrlrrafrl/1■r■rrM■nrlr■�I/1■r■II■■nnitrara 1 r+arw■rrilwlararrra ra rra�rrR+r■>.ai lenarra�rrie■Isnaara±ri�lrwr■la�rlarwrRl■r11r■n IIR1■i[I■Iw[R1a1■IRI■A Rl■Rf[[rarwlrl■#R!■la[R1iRwIRliaa!■If RR1w1A IRI■rR!■li[R �� rlllillr111rl1alRrrillllilli111111rlRIfaRllrillillllllrrRllillllillrrlrllllrlrllillrri11i1Rllllrl rr�Mra111rlra/I/1■r■rNiRlfrlrafal/1■r■rKMillrrrffal/1■r■rNMRllrrri/I/1■r■IK*11111*a#Ir Ir■rwwnrn■rrilrar■rsw1R1►rwiaanar■riwrrilwrsarur■rwwlrir■lairnrwrwwrlwlwn , u1n�a1■Iw[RrilwlRl■IrRr aRRr■[wlrulrRl■la[R■iu■1■Ilalsl*[[rilw■1■Ir[!■3i[[ ,� Alll■II■irirllrrt111r■IIIIR IrtlII1R111r■Ir■lullrrtall■IIII■II■■Illr�■I1■1lrr■Ir■Irlllril rrr/u1r1/ial:ar■rlrn .. Iwrwla/rulwirl/1■r■rn/[nrnimur■rla/nllrrurr Ir■irwwlrir■railer• .■■■, nar■iriwrtlR+■ranr+lrlArw■IIII irnrwralwrrrrr■n Ilrnl■n■Iwwon- •�■■■�►. rri■11[I■IURrirwlRlsas! nsllil■r[!■IUR rnl■uiurrlrra� •■■3� ■■� r■nillllntarAll/■Ilin �. +nr■rrilRlurlrl uarral11r1/ i�■■■r ■■■■■. nnlrarrlr Ira+rw■ .�■■■■■ 1■■■■■.. iRi�dnlrra� era■■�- � rlar■n •1 . c IRI■i .i■■ ERE ■■- IwMR ru ...+■..'■.�■w■.■+...+.... .rIMMERSE • .... 11I � I�I r-1 -- •ate i Ilrl■R■ISIfrrR■r■1!i■#i1�11■i1+_ .�■lR■R■■1■■■I�If■iR■1■I1r1111■I�i�■* ArRIM1Ar1re111N1111rAArIr11r1RIAIrNIIIR�AIIr�IIrARIlII11111�■1rN1■Ilrlrrlrl11R111rAMrA■i1rrR�lrlNl �l+l��llrrti■�I■r��Arllw�rtllrrtir�i■r��Artl�s�rlirr����rrr+■r�Ir�r:Ir�r�l■,I��ArwrNrArtrlrr���n Ar�llll■R�r�■�s■IR■r�r■■Rail■l�rlR■r■r■■�rir■!s■r�r■r�u�r�ri�l�I■IR■rArr■■Rlrl■!+ IRI■R■1■Af 1 RR■R■IRI■ARI■rf■RR#■■IRI■■Rlir■fiR*11R■IRI■A■1■rf■RR■R■IRr■ll■1■A■■■ AIIlr11r1R11rIN11H�1111■IIr1All11N11l�*IIII■I1rIRIAIINIRI�>rllRl■Ilrlrllll*1■IR■IIII■IIrIRRAIINI Rlll■■rIl1�Rllli�■■�1w�iI11111■Il IAA■■�111*■rrrlRllAlil■■�11~■RIf111■R l�1■■�111lRrA11���IR Iril�■Rf�l#I��III•r�I■1■Rl�rRilAc*Il�f�IAwRR�I■I��1��r�IIIRI<l�[■iAc*IIII r�lA#RRltl■II IrRI■ARIiRwRr11AR�rl1■A■i IwR*r■1w1�i�ARliiw■r*■r■IRIS■RII•RwR■■■R■III��RI�iw■w IIrIrllrrAR}1rAA1R1�rA1RrA11' �IA�1!■tt1111111ArA1f11AlAMR1111IRI■iAr1r1111L1�R1r)611 Will 1 RlawRlrllRR�iir■K�l■� �, _uR��1�■RIIII*Al�lil■N�1�■RAtlIIf■RI�i■�■f��R111i��R11 If�IA■Il■1■1■■IR■' ��■\_ ��IRfir■1■■�RAI■I■■1■■r■!1■■RI■I RIIR■r■r■■RIAI■I+ IIRI■■■1■r■rIF' ■■■ \ - '-■■RI■rw■1R■R■IIII■---- IIRA■■Rliloss AgrNIArlAnirfr -■■ ■• wllrlRfllrllMRl�■lIRlNI �+- 1r1N11rIR1ArIMl Rhl�Ir• �i■r■/ ■■ ■■w■w� -r1i■■aA�i■nra� err■r\. .■�Illi��ral1 Ir■r■F irrr±r■ Arrrrr.. �I1■I ■1■■ �i■ice �wAtl■A■I+ IIRIF �i■■■■■■ ■■■ ■■■■fi■\. �■RRfa �i■■r' .�■R 111 .�■\r■■�r�■�r ■4rIS ■■fir■►. M ■■■ram 1Nlr IMID r r r■ - •. - rr r - •. rrr- .r - rr 1 1 • /"1. � "1 1 1 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation Name(orig Email Join time Leave time Duration (minutes) Guest Hethe Clarl hclark@clarkwardle.com 5/23/202417:59 5/23/202418:19 20 No Mike Alvers mdjba@msn.com 5/23/202418:04 5/23/202418:19 15 Yes Tony Mayer tmayer@personnel.com 5/23/202418:07 5/23/202418:19 13 Yes Recording c In waiting room No Respon;No No Respon:No No Respon;No W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Apex Phenomenal (H-2024-0041) by Brighton Corporation, generally located on the north side of E. Lake Hazel Rd. approximately 1/4 mile west of S. Locust Grove Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0041 A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 64 building lots and 11 common lots and (1) other lot for future development on 16.15 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. 235 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: November 7, 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 10 PROJECT NAME: Apex Phenomenal (H-2024-0041) 3 Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 11/7/2024 DATE: TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 �� . ,1—T sallen@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Amanda McNutt, Brighton Corp. SUBJECT: H-2024-0041 Apex Phenomenal(aka Pinnacle) Legend �9 Project Location t -LOCATION: Generally Generally located on the north side E. Area of Impact Lake Hazel Road, approximately 1/4 mile = City Limits ; west of S. Locust Grove Rd. in the SE Analysis ULM1/4 of Section 31,T.3N.,R.IE. (Parcel e #S1131438975) I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Preliminary plat consisting of 64 building lots, 11 common lots and one (1)other lot for future development on 16.15-acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. B. Issues/Waivers None C. Recommendation Staff: Approval D. Decision Pending City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview 236 I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant/undeveloped - Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential dwellings(attached and detached) - Existing Zoning R-15 (Medium High-density Residential) VII.A.2 Adopted FLUM Designation Medium High Density Residential(MHDR) VII.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 6/4/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 6/26/2024 Site posting date 10/14/2024 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access S.Apex Ave.,a commercial collector street;E. Phenomenal - St.,a local street;and a proposed private street(Street A) • Traffic Level of Service Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour - Classification Traffic Count Level of Service E Lake Hazel Road 1,213-feet Principal Arterial 167 Better than"E" Locust Grove Road 0-feet Minor Arterial 181 Better than"E" Apex Avenue 554-feet Collector NIA NIA Sublimity Avenue 554-feet Collector NIA WA Phenomenal Street 1,213-feet Local NIA WA *Acceptable level of service for a five-lane principal arterial is'E"(1,780 VPH). *Acceptable level of service for a three-lane minor arterial is"E"(720 VPH). "Acceptable level of service for a two-lane collector is"D"(425 VPH). "*ACHD does not set level of service thresholds for local roadways. Meridian Fire Comments not received. Meridian Police Comments not received. Meridian Public Works Wastewater • Distance to Mainline Currently no existing sewer service at this location; currently under construction and will be available to the site. • Impacts or Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions in Agency Comments folder in the public record. Meridian Public Works Water • Distance to Mainline Currently no existing water main at this location;currently under construction and will be available to the site. • Impacts or Concerns none School District(s) No comments received Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions received. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 237 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The proposed development consists of one(1) 15.93-acre parcel of land,zoned R-15 (Medium High Density Residential). The underlying Future Land Use Map(FLUM)designation in the Comprehensive Plan for the subject property is Medium High Density Residential(MHDR). The proposed single-family attached and detached units provide a mix of dwelling types at a gross density of 8 units per acre,which is consistent with the desired density of 8 to 12 units per acre in MHDR designated areas. The preliminary plat is proposed to develop in one(1)phase. The Applicant plans to re-subdivide the western 7.94-acre lot(i.e. Lot 76)in the future and will likely develop that area with more single-family attached and detached units similar to this development;however,they're unsure at this time on the layout or lot sizes for that area. All the proposed units will have alley-access and will front on adjacent streets or internal common mews. A traffic study was not required by ACHD. The proposed development is relatively compact in relation to the larger Apex/Pinnacle development and is located in close proximity to future neighborhood commercial services to the east at the corner of Locust Grove and Lake Hazel Roads,including a new public library and an amphitheater where a variety of public events will be held. It's also located in close proximity to Discovery Park'h mile to the east on the south side of Lake Hazel Rd. It's well-connected with pedestrian pathways and incorporates attractive landscaping and high- quality architectural design and materials to ensure quality of place. The proposed development is consistent with the development guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan and with the recorded development agreement. Table 4: Pro*ect Overview Description Details History Ord.#16-1670(AZ H-2015-0019 South Meridian);H-2020-0066 [(MDA) DA Inst.#2020-1781201;H-2020-0066(RZ Ord.#20-1910) Phasing Plan 1 phase Residential Units 64 single-family residential detached units&one(1)large lot for future development Open Space 2.27-acres(27.6%) Amenities Multi-sport court with artificial turf Physical Features An irrigation ditch crosses this site. Acreage 16.15-acres Lots 64 building lots, 11 common lots and 1 other lot Density 7.8 units/acre(gross); 13.73 units/acre(net) Notes:See Error!Reference source not found.Error!Reference source not found.. B. History This property was annexed in 2015 with an R-4(place holder)zoning district as part of the South Meridian Category A annexation and included in a Development Agreement(DA). The property was later rezoned to the R-15 zoning district in 2020 and a new Development Agreement was recorded that removed this property from the original agreement(DA Inst. #2020-178120). C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): None City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 238 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed single-family attached and detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-15 zoning district in UDC Table 11-2A-2. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Future development shall comply with the dimensional standards for the R-15 district listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7. Staff ,finds the following Policies are applicable to support the proposed development: Comprehensive Plan policy#3.07.00 encourages compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land. Comprehensive Plan policy 3.07.OIA requires all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening, transitional densities, and other best site design practices. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3G): A minimum of 15% qualified open space is required to be provided in the R-15 district. Based on the eastern 8.20-acre portion of the site proposed to develop at this time,a minimum of 1.23-acres of common open space is required that meets the minimum quality standards in UDC 11-3G-3A.2 and qualified open space standards in UDC 11-3G-3B. A total of 2.27-acres is proposed consisting of linear open space; 50%of the landscape buffer along E. Lake Hazel Rd., an arterial street; 100% of the landscape buffer along S.Apex Ave., a collector street; and open grassy areas of at least 5,000 square feet in area(see exhibit in Section VILE).Note:Although it's not needed to meet the minimum standard, Lot 69 is below the minimum width of 20'required for linear open space and cannot be counted. Additionally,per current code, when street buffers are counted toward qualified open space, they're required to have enhanced landscaping; however, because the minimum standard is met without inclusion of the street buffers and this wasn't a code requirement when the abutting Apex Northwest development was approved, Staff does not recommend it's required with this application. The western 7.94-acres(i.e. Lot 76)proposed to be re-subdivided in the future,is required to comply with the open space and site amenity standards in effect at the time of development. Based on 8.20-acres,a minimum of two(2)points of site amenities are required; four(4) points of amenities are proposed consisting of an artificial turf multi-sport court in the central common mew area,which meets and exceeds the standard(see detail in Section VILE). This development will also have access to all other amenities in the larger Apex/Pinnacle development,which include swimming pools, clubhouses, additional open space,trails,play equipment,barbeque grills and covered seating. 2. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets A 25' wide street buffer is required along E. Lake Hazel Rd., an arterial street, and 20' wide street buffers are required along S. Apex Ave. and S. Sublimity Ave.,both collector streets, landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.3. Because this subdivision isn't being phased, all street buffers are required to be installed with development. The landscape plan should be revised to reflect compliance with the aforementioned standards(i.e.the full buffer width is required to be provided and City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 239 should be landscaped with a variety of trees,shrubs,lawn or other vegetative groundcover). Street buffers are required to be on a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer easement,maintained by the property owner or homeowner's association as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C.2a; the plat should be revised accordingly. ii. Tree preservation All existing trees and landscaping shall be protected during construction. There are no existing trees proposed for removal. iii. Storm integration Stormwater integration is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 11 C. iv. Pathway landscaping Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. The 5-foot wide pathways located on common area lots along the rear of building lots are required to be set off the property line in order to provide a landscape strip along each side of the pathways as set forth in UDC 11-3B-12C.1. 3. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Residential parking analysis Off-street parking is required per the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6;the number of parking spaces is based on the number of bedrooms per unit. On-street parking along adjacent public streets(i.e.E. Phenomenal St. and S.Apex Ave.) is also available for guests. 4. Building Elevations (Comp Plan, Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed attached and detached units as shown below in Section VII.F. The single-family attached units require design review approval and are subject to the residential design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual.Additionally,the DA requires development to incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place consistent with the Comprehensive Plan(see pg.3-10). The DA also requires the rear and/or sides of structures on lots that face E.Lake Hazel Rd. (i.e.Lots 40-49 and 51-58,Block 1) and S.Apex Ave. (i.e.Lots 13, 15,39 and 40, Block 1)to incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections, recesses,step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches, balconies,material types,or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. 5. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): No fencing is depicted on the landscape plan. The UDC (11-3A-7A.7)requires the developer to construct fences abutting pathways and common open space lots to distinguish common from private areas; fencing should be depicted on a revised landscape plan along with a detail of the fencing type proposed or alternative compliance may be requested to the standard. 6. Parkways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17E. Existing 8- foot wide parkways are depicted on the landscape plan with trees and landscaping. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 240 Comprehensive Plan policy#2.02.02F states that new development within existing residential neighborhoods should be cohesive and complementary in design and construction. E. Transportation Analysis Level of Service Planning Thresholds 1. Condition of Area Roadways Traffic Count is based on Vehicles per hour(VPH) Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service E Lake Hazel Road 1,213-feet Principal Arterial 167 Better than"E" Locust Grove Road 0-feet Minor Arterial 181 Better than"E" Apex Avenue 554-feet Collector NIA NIA Sublimity Avenue 554-feet Collector NIA NIA Phenomenal Street 1,213-feet Local NIA NIA *Acceptable level of service for a five-lane principal arterial is"E"(1,780 VPH). *Acceptable level of service for a three-lane minor arterial is"E"(720 VPH). w Acceptable level of service for a two-lane collector is"D"(425 VPH). **ACHD does not set level of service thresholds for local roadways. ACHD Planned Improvements 1. Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)I Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): • Amity Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from SH-69(Meridian Road) to Locust Grove Road with a design year of 2023-2024,a right-of-way year of 2027-2028,and construction year yet to be determined, • Amity Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road with a design year of 2025-2026,a right-of-way year of 2027,and a construction year yet to be determined. • Locust Grove Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 3-lanes from Amity Road to Victory Road with a design year of 2028-2029 and a construction year yet to be determined. • The intersection of Amity Road and Locust Grove Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be constructed as a multi-lane roundabout with 2-lanes on the north leg,2-lanes on the south,4- lanes east, and 4-lanes on the west leg with a design year of 2023-2024,a right-of-way year of 2027-2928,and a construction year yet to be determined. • Locust Grove Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Lake Hazel Road to Amity Road between 2036 and 2040. • Lake Hazel Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from SH-69(Meridian Road)to Locust Grove Road and is currently under construction. 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Residential units will be accessed via alleys from local and collector streets abutting the site. The proposed alleys accessing S. Apex Ave. are in alignment with those across the street in Apex Northwest Subdivision No. 1. Direct lot access via E. Lake Hazel Rd., an arterial street, is prohibited. Address signage should be provided at the alley entrances off the public streets for homes that don't have frontage on a public street.Address numbers shall also be provided on the rear of structures visible from the alley for emergency responders. 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): A 10-foot wide detached multi-use pathway is required within the street buffers along E. Lake Hazel Rd. and S. Sublimity Ave. within a 14-foot wide public use easement per the City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 241 Park's Dept. if they're located outside of the adjacent right-of-way; otherwise, an easement is not required. 3. Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-81): Five-foot wide pathways and micro-paths are proposed in internal common areas for interconnectivity within the development and adjacent developments. Comprehensive Plan policy#2.02.0IA states, "With new subdivision plats, require the design and construction of pathways connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities." 4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Detached sidewalks are proposed adjacent to public and private streets in accord with UDC 11-3A-17. 5. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4): One(1)private street is depicted on the plat as Street A. The purpose statement for private streets in UDC 11-3F-1, states it's not the intent to approve private streets for single-family developments other than those that create a common mew through the site design or that propose a limited gated residential development.A mew is proposed on the eastern portion of the development;the development is not proposed to be gated. A private street application must be submitted for approval of the proposed private street that complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-317-4 and may be submitted with the final plat application.Approval from the transportation authority(i.e.ACHD) and the Fire Dept.is required.Approval of the street name is also required from the Ada County Street Name Committee. 6. Subdivision Regulations (UDC I1-6): i. Dead end streets The proposed private street dead ends at approximately 438-feet but will connect to alleys to the east and presumably to the west with future re-subdivision of Lot 76. ii. Block face The proposed block face complies with UDC 11-6C-3F. F. Services Analysis 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): The Watkins Drain,a private irrigation facility,crosses this site. Per Idaho State Statutes, Title 42,local irrigation/drainage ditches that cross this property to serve neighboring properties must remain unobstructed and protected by an appropriate easement by the landowner, developer and contractors. A 25-foot wide maintenance easement is proposed over the drain and should be depicted on the plat. 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-1 S): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be installed to provide irrigation to each lot in the subdivision in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-15. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 3. Storm Drainage (UDC I1-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system shall be required in all developments in accord with the city's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the city. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Utilities are required to be installed in the proposed development as set forth in UDC I I-3A- 21. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS &CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. The final plat shall substantially comply with the approved preliminary plat as set forth in UDC 11-6B-3C and with the provisions of the development agreement associated with H- 2020-0066 (Inst. #2020-178120). 2. All single-family attached units shall comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. A design review application shall be submitted for approval of the proposed structures prior to submittal of building permit applications. 3. Development shall incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place consistent with the Comprehensive Plan(see pg. 3-10) per the development agreement. 4. The rear and/or side of structures on lots that face E. Lake Hazel Rd. (i.e. Lots 40-49 and 51- 58,Block 1) and S. Apex Ave. (i.e. Lots 13, 15, 39 and 40,Block 1) shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections, recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. 5. The final plat submitted with the final plat application shall include the following revisions: i. Depict the required street buffers(i.e. 25-feet along E. Lake Hazel Rd. and 20-feet along S. Sublimity Ave. and S.Apex Ave.) on a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer easement,maintained by the property owner or homeowner's association as set forth in UDC 11-313-7C.2a. ii. Depict 14-foot wide public pedestrian easements for the multi-use pathways along S. Sublimity Ave. and E. Lake Hazel Rd. if they're located outside of the adjacent right-of- way; include the recorded instrument numbers of the easements. iii. Depict a 25-foot wide maintenance easement over the Watkins drain. iv. Include a note that prohibits direct lot access via E. Lake Hazel Rd., S. Apex Ave. and S. Sublimity Ave. other than those accesses specifically approved with this application. 6. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat application shall be revised as follows: i. Depict a 25-foot wide street buffer along E. Lake Hazel Rd., an arterial street, and 20- foot wide street buffers along S. Apex Ave. and S. Sublimity Ave.,both collector streets, landscaped with a variety of trees, shrubs,lawn,or other vegetative ground cover in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.3. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 243 ii. Depict landscaping along all pathways as set forth in UDC 11-3B-12C. The pathways located on common area lots along the rear of building lots shall be set off the property line in order to provide a landscape strip along each side of the pathways in accord with the standards in UDC 11-313-12C.1. iii. Depict fencing abutting pathways and common open space lots to distinguish common from private areas as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7A.7 or alternative compliance may be requested to the standard. iv. Depict a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway along the east side of S. Sublimity Ave. as well as along E. Lake Hazel Rd. 7. All required street buffers shall be installed with development of the subdivision, including those on Lot 76,Block 1. 8. Submit 14-foot wide public pedestrian easements for the multi-use pathways along S. Sublimity Ave. and E. Lake Hazel Rd. as required by the Park's Dept. if they're located outside of the adjacent right-of-way. 9. Stormwater integration shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-11C. 10. Address signage shall be provided at the alley entrances off the public streets for homes that don't have frontage on a public street. Address numbers shall also be provided on the rear of structures visible from the alley for emergency responders. 11. A private street application shall be submitted concurrently with the final plat application for approval of the private street. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4 is required. 12. The preliminary plat shall become null and void if the Applicant fails to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat within two(2)years of the approval of the preliminary plat as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7A; or obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7C. See the Agency Comments folder in the project file in the public record for other City and Agency comments and conditions: (copy the link into a separate browser) https.Ilweblink.meridiancituorzlWebLinklbrowse.aspx?id=360421&dbid=0&repo MeridianCit V V. FINDINGS A. Preliminary Plat(UDC-613-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; Stafffinds the proposed plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and will be consistent with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the above-noted conditions. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds public services are currently being extended and will be available to serve the site and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 244 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Stafffinds the proposed plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Stafffinds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Stafffinds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat with the conditions listed above in Section IV. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action 245 ' � 1 W .. a� .I11111 Illllllr '\ �-�_�1111111 -.- Illlln—unllr '�! p�rrrri=•innm � Z = �rl. �rj11 {�►�1� n a •u n� ` �►�� �ii�n��j {IJ •��,�'��.l�ii,=say �11111 1111, ��- i ■`I 1�1111111111�- ■. 1 �11111111111__�p� 1 �rrG�llll��l�� ,mll Hllle' auu11 ���_II LAKE HAZEL- I �' 1 'pit ,:; +Cry' - -- 11111� "Ir`♦ — 3. Future Land Use Legend Project Location �1Nedium Density' Area of Impact Residential Low Density OAnalysis Residential �PF MU-RG i FT— MU-C Civic Med=High Density Residential r 4. Planned Development Map �t LegendUIWU Project Location ' Area of Impact T= City Limits ® v — Planned Parcels L 1 O Analysis —EE EHM 1 1 - ® �,l ®q 1 ® l MIEEI 1 -E 1 1 1 1 ' \ t--------r 11 1 1 1 \ City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits F247] B. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL S1131438975 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Score: 18 7th Percentile Description Location In City Limits Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplain or > 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time > 9 min. RED Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals some of the time YELLMN Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Not within 1/4 of current or future transit route RED Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets Arterial Road Buildout Status YELLOIN plan) > existing (# of lanes) & road iS in 5 yr work plan School Walking Proximity From 1/2 to 1 mile walking YELLOW School Drivability Not within 2 miles driving of existing or future school RED Either a Regional Park within 1 mile OR a Community Park Walkability Park within 1/2 mile OR Neighborhood Parkwithi- GREEN 1/4 mile walking Report generated on 10-24-2g2E by MERIGIAN'�salle,� City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 248 C. Preliminary Plat(date: 7/28/2024) NOIllf1N1SNOD NOd iGN-AWNINIINd ® Im, �$ �a S]8� Ada I 2 `n6 s I i o0 9 _ _ _ I 4 — � Z IV v I w I Q F ]nY © I N I 9 - a NN401 OD .= 0 4 C y rO 3 O m �zz d Z } woo¢ Q =mg O z Z z IzLL, J tl °°, I e wX 5� g i a�§ fI $ g F 449 �s I �A City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 249 NOIllnUISN0]110d ION-ANVNIV Il1dd S r o moM - - - --�_ n --- --- __— I cos i l /I Yvi (III I xr e� a 1 I ryry �R 9 h 'LM�Iblilwls n / a / S c P 0 1 e ......„�r,.� ' IIII �' II IIII qg- LI _ TF / I iE 1! +If l C II e v. se�y sx• —— -- ——'-- _ L 1 II If City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 250 NOIE)MUSNO711Od ION-ANV NI W I1311d ilil36 __. I p f 3F Y p� b ' _7 tT ON O HP � W, & g Fa I �a� $aa�¢ 22 71 CFO Way -- ©e©_ O aka s ®a 16 ®s too V OOa ; - - Wykk [exx Vlras II , - I _ II I N7 II II I I � I = II as Ciao 2 I I I I rraeas - .. I I I a I I E� & H i0s;1 NO II G��,.�8 HIS, � .os b°s 3.zs.9�.00x eg �e §9 � 11 a ���@gu@gg City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 251 D. Landscape Plan(date: 7/30/2024) NOII UOi ION-AUVNIW 11311d Eli E £.m O 3 w F s 9 S 9 us Ii a gg3 a S @ i' § xaxas"vai ,aeaa 5^aaasa v4 sz � €� s¢& a a ps a ge s€.1 z2f5 o �oT p 2 0000 v' O Elm d 5 .¢ I RRyy a c uvav3Ig _ tears Y a4 i�d € e9S 'R a u ��� 5 OO Oa a0 {€ e a 1&v s43p°p €�€ Ox >, a� Oa rl s a sa€�.g dar'Sp a W Ad �a in im K g4 6 § nxa y sa ode �� 0 �3� ����.� �C5d ��a�a 4z g s 9 4 I I,_ I��a - fi I I O •�, - ��iSgil�����a .� •i•.- ab °a° g e — III I�_ �$� ��ah V dd 335 li_ lava viox 3ailaM iavd v>.ox'3an3ne hn �8g 's � �€€� N=2, � _ IN 777. �elx A I a. $ -a I 1 ,�1; 2� e9ae r, d p I NI y� I � P z W '.• <x e i s4gd O 3 Q 'MOO fl9llS S C n� r?a x.l � 8 I I City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 252 N0uanUISNOD UOJ ION-AUVNI W Il3Nd 5� t §X$ a�$yllp 7 o 0 1 a u�i vav lFs im�, H I 0 ,a fl 'z z � e a s� Y 5$w�. �ff eat s a a �»� ��Y€� "�_� w $ �e �.•,g W z� � a a ae. r� �g 3 'yFc�e'es��g s;s s£s=$�& §��:zs�s• gg s9 ���.� #'8�s a� a j�@4a Ea O oe i E a � "s. �� c ee� � Sg�Y3c3$�c — r y- h1 4 I I � II I - I �`• it l- � I � I \�.. �c III 'F i I _ o*�•� -n � �I- -� r I � iS�✓ t°-�� ✓. _-� -a".'`t r•: _ � ,,ice C � I cf O II I , II T -1 0 l s I I I a I z II I J le S - Oil H6'1 dvloWawum - City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 253 E. Qualified Open Space Exhibit(date: 6/26/2024)& Site Amenity Detail 9K6 121, e i m S g § § E s We a s a s a n 8 ¢ 5 yyp C E E w f n a`a tl 4 o C9 o a 0 0 0 o A'A .. ........ 0 o OO z a hV Ng1bNIW111�'S i f3lvNaaVv Sxn'S I I I � I 5 � I W II = w � w Z p �g�@ e`6ed �srygti I s Y a arix�auwnerxs O a ,�q� l a� 1' City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 254 New sidewalk locations(blue) and multisport court location (orange). !.PNENOMENA15T. 0 0 (D , G G 0 0 0 u u) n t,I 11' Q �J_-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- r#-- t o000o Gr' o ; O K=. a. Oi : o » o0o s, oo > 000000 ., oeo ;, -8 In Multisport artificial turf court example - ,A . City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 255 F. Conceptual Building Elevations Single Family Detached Carriage Lane ti smell �����`,=fin' Single Family Attached(Paired)Carriage Lane - - 4W I„ I1�- in . Mai City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 256 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation Apex Phenomenal Preliminary Plat Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission November 7th 1 2024 �;- BRIGHTON Pinnacle Development Status �'1111111��� —r-� ♦ � 1 - •e 1111111111N;�IIIIIN� ' "!I,r 7-7E lllllllll IIIII'lill E __ — . . • 4STA110N . Ar is A • • _ E hit IAq"_ �, V _ � all + � ,. . 4 a, 1111 111111, NNAA ' 'r 4, = 6 • • 1119 - .kx>• iC_ 11111111 a g w r RE y tea' MW is111, llllllllll� �IIlAl111�1W1[NI BRIGHTON Pinnacle Development PINNACLE recently completed �Yil��T•:r•1►� _ ., construction 4 i N' Lake Hazel now en . rdr R -� © Sublimity / mini RAB at k 4� ` S Crescendo Q Internal street network includin g • M _ = - (�� Crescendo, High Point, and WN ask In Phenomenal 41 , 3 K ► „ ^ BRIGHTON Apex Phenomenal Pre- Plat 9ht�n Comm IlMIMIC 'Hill IIIE11d11M1i; rillld _" "" � �j. hIIIIIIII�P�IIIIIII,s��= 0! - _}111111111`IIIIIIIII' a a �rllllllFll IIIIIIIII _,sx,c1E.I.L1 c�11111111 ll�lil « � r • - • - • - ��= SIIIIIII illlll � � � a EIEIII'i(IIIIIIIII Illllllt'llll[II �� I. Ill{ll20 ■iilllllllll �� ME ME WE �,. EN ti + r tee- l a rll - AW ArA a _ • _ 4 -kill. ;: fill �11111 yr - • fllr ilrrrM T]III 9 = 1111 w -e -�� 11111111 AN� -� � • - - - � � ,ten=.flf �fllllllln� `■,Illllitl[�l�Eulk 49,11- BRIGHTON Apex Phenomenal Features Apex Phenomenal is proposed to have an artificial turf multisport court, ample open space, and pedestrian connectivity. Residents • ., f �t)T- y FUTURE R- 1 5 will have access to other PINNACLE community amenities including pools, i LL- clubhouses, extensive ``. .. ;. ..m �; ..! ,• , . . . . . . pathway systems, barbe ues, and more. a � Proposed multisport court location 6 BRIGHTON Multisport Court Example L.t. 1 y BRIGHTON New Sidewalk Locations ,ft,9xa;R;rW= lug m ;s - • - • - • - - �' ' F g8 BRIGHTON Elevations • - - • - • • • - . - • s r fir LEJ t t .o 4 m BRIGHTON Elevations K _ LL �g� R y s � t 4 - Paired Single-Family Carriage Lane 41 - BRIGHTON Futur- Land Use E e,.zcanrso 5� ' 5 - Apex Phenomenal is designated "Medium High ~ Density Residential" in 1 f the Future Land Use Map. 1 1 p 1 1 - 1 1 s No FLUM modification is C L'AKL 11,8.7E L-RL} requested . -_ a f x 11 y 41 - BRIGHTON Zoning C Apex Phenomenal is zoned R-15 . -� -- + E Crescendo Sx ' 1 No zoning modification is _ , requested . ca '1 ' F ESL-AKE HAZF[-R€? 12 BRIGHTON Conclusion We concur with the Staff Recommendation of approval , and request Planning & Zoning recommendation of approval of Apex Phenomenal Preliminary Plat . 13 9ht0 n com`� Discussion